9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2020 on 17.02.2021 [ 2021 (3) TMI 1018 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] examining in detail the aspect relating to adjudication of pre-deposit and accordingly, no detailed order as regards to the legal contentions advanced in common in the present petition as were raised in W.P.No.11485/2020 is required while observing that legal aspects have been elucidated in the said order - While taking note of the observations made in W.P.No.11485/2020, the estimate made in Form SVLDRS-2 and 3 are set aside. The first respondent to re-work the statement in SVLDRS-3 after arriving at a conclusion regarding the deposit over and above the amount of ₹ 20,27,249/- that has already been given credit as per the earlier SVLDRS-2 form, which is now set aside. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the respondent no.1 to accept the declaration made by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1. 2. The petitioner submits that a show-cause notice dated 19.10.2012 came to be issued, and in respect of the subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner has sought to avail of the benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( the Scheme , for short). The petitioner submits that necessary application was made in Form SVLDRS-1 seeking in such declaration filed by him, for adjustment of pre-deposit of ₹ 1,13,79,328/-. The petitioner submits that under the estimate under Section 127 in SVLDRS-2 as made out by the respondent, the pre-deposit that was taken note for the purpose of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er company is concerned, details were obtained under the RTI Act, copy of which is produced at Annexure-'J'. The petitioner would contend that consideration of petitioner's request in Form No.3 is not appropriate and the matter requires reconsideration in light of submission made at Annexure-'E'. 6. The learned counsel for respondents would submit that statement of objections have been filed and that at para 5 of the statement of objections, they have set out what according to them were certain ambiguities insofar as petitioner's claim for appropriation is concerned, in specific, it is pointed out that the question as to whether amount claimed as pre-deposit has been made with respect to the dispute, which is the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions made in W.P.No.11485/2020. It needs to be noted that insofar as the contention of the department that SVLDRS is time specific and cannot be extended, the same is adverted to at Para 19 of the order passed in W.P.No.11485/2020 referred to supra. As regards to the contention that petitioner ought to have claimed credit under ST-3 Returns, same has been considered in para 18 of the order, which may be taken note of. 11. Accordingly, while taking note of the observations made in W.P.No.11485/2020, the estimate made in Form SVLDRS-2 and 3 are set aside. The first respondent to re-work the statement in SVLDRS-3 after arriving at a conclusion regarding the deposit over and above the amount of ₹ 20,27,249/- that has already been given cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
