9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme, be entitled to Tax Relief thereunder which would absolve the petitioner from paying further amounts? - HELD THAT:- The SVLDR Scheme contemplates Tax Relief as detailed in Section 124: Section 124(2) stipulates that the Tax Relief shall be calculated subject to the condition that any deposit during enquiry or investigation or audit shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by a declarant and subject to the condition that if the amount so paid exceeds the amount payable by the declarant as indicated in the statement, the declarant shall not be entitled to any relief. If it is undisputed that the petitioner has deposited a sum of that the petitioner has paid ₹ 92,33,857/- after the audit and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Statements issued by the Designated Committee-SVLDR Scheme, the first respondent, in Form No. SVLDRS-2 [Annexure-A] and in Form No. SVLDRS-3 [Annexure-B] with a direction to the respondents to issue Discharge Certificate in terms of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( SVLDR Scheme ). 2. Sri. Raghuraman V, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is initially issued with Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 for a certain tax demand indicating inter alia that the petitioner had paid service tax in a sum of ₹ 1,60,00,000/-. After a subsequent audit, the Report dated 08.04.2015 is filed wherein, it is recorded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual deposit/ payment of duty as service tax which is undisputed and is as recorded in the Audit Report 08.04.2015. The petitioner in the declaration as per Annexure-Q has indicated payment/ deposit of duty in a sum of ₹ 92,33,857/- as against now indicated ₹ 27,66,646/- because that would be the difference between the amounts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 and the Audit Report dated 08.04.2015. There is no justification for issuance of the impugned Form No.SVLDRS-2 and Form No.SVLDRS-3 as there could be no dispute about the deposit of duty. 4. Sri. Raghuraman. V taking this Court through the Scheme and the obligation on the part of the authorities under Rule 6 of the SVLDR Scheme submits that the Designat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT. The petitioner, without mentioning all the details, has referred to two of the remittances made to demonstrate payment of such 10% to justify the required pre-deposit. The payment of ₹ 2,52,46,749/- as Tax (including a sum of ₹ 92,33,857/- after the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014) is obvious from the Audit Report dated 08.04.2015, and the first respondent, enjoined in law to verify to its records, cannot take a technical approach to refuse tax relief, a right which is secured under the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme. 7. The dispute in the present writ petition, as is obvious from the respective pleadings, is on a short ground: whether in the facts and circumstances of the case could there be a dispute on the Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. It is obvious from these remarks that the first respondent has relied upon the Order-in-original dated 27.09.2018 to arrive at the conclusion that the deposit of Service Tax by the petitioner is only in a sum of ₹ 27,66,646/- and therefore, issuance of the impugned SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 would be justified. However, there is no serious dispute that the Order-in-original dated 27.09.2018 is a decision on the controversy between the petitioner and the revenue as of that date viz., the liability to pay a sum of ₹ 1,77,06,985/-, and there was neither any dispute about the tax paid nor a decision in that regard. 9. The Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014, with which the controversy between the petitioner and the revenue comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed that the petitioner has deposited a sum of that the petitioner has paid ₹ 92,33,857/- after the audit and the petitioner is disputing the liability in a sum of R1,77,06,985/- in an appeal before the CESTAT. In the light of the provisions of Section 124 of the SVLDRS Scheme, the petitioner would be entitled Tax Relief subject deduction of ₹ 92,33,857/-. However, the Tax relief is refused referring to the order-in-original which does not even refer to the deposit made by the petitioner after the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014. The assertion on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner has itself declared that a sum of ₹ 27,66,646/- in the appeal memorandum of appeal before the CESTAT cannot also be accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
