9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not necessary that the figures on such admission should have Mathematical precision or should be exactly the same as the subsequent quantification by the authorities in the form of show cause notice etc. post 30th June, 2019. The object of the scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. It is held that the fact that there could be a discrepancy of figure but only when the tax dues admitted by the person concerned prior to 30th June, 2019 and subsequently quantified by the departmental authorities, would not be material to determine the eligibility to file Declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry, investigation or audit. The impugned order dated 12th February 2020 rejecting SVLDRS-1 declaration submitted by the petitioner is quashed and set aside - the petitioner is held eligible to file the said SVLDRS-1 declaration and to avail benefits under the said Scheme - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO.986 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2022 - R.D. DHANUKA AND S.M. MODAK, JJ. Mr. Sachin Chitnis a/w Mr.Kiran Chavan i/by M/s. CENEX Services for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember 2019 from the DGGI. The tax dues were not quantified finally on or before 30th June 2019. On 2nd March 2020, the petitioner reiterated that the tax dues were admitted by them before the DGGI and thus requested the Principal Commissioner to seek verification report from DGGI to confirm the same. On 30th December 2020, the DGGI issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to recover the specified amount of service. The petitioner requested for a copy of the report dated 17th December 2019 of DGGI on 22nd January 2021. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the said report before DGGI has not been served upon the petitioner till date. Since the petitioner apprehended the coercive action from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition for various reliefs. 7. Mr.Chitnis, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to SVLDRS-1 declaration submitted by the petitioner and also to Form SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A. He invited our attention to the statement of Shri M.B. Shaikh, one of the Directors of the petitioner recorded on 25th March 2019 before the Senior Intelligence Officer and more particularly to the reply to the question no.10 accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MUM-ST . He submits that in the identical facts, after considering several judgments of this Court and various provisions of the said Scheme, this Court has accepted the admission of tax dues in the statement made by one of the Directors therein as the tax dues for the purpose of availing benefits under the said scheme. 11. Mr.Ochani, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, invited our attention to the averments made in some of the paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply dated 12th July 2021 filed by Mr.Milind Gawai, Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai. He submits that in the statement of the petitioner made through its Director, so far as the financial year 2015-16 was concerned, the petitioner had admitted the liability only for the 2nd half of the financial year i.e. from October 2015 to March 2016 and not for the 1st half i.e. April 2015 to September 2015. He submits that the petitioner was not eligible to apply under the said scheme as the tax dues were not fully quantified as on 30th June 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the investigation initiated by the respondents vide notice dated 30th December 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted tax dues made by the petitioner not only in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer but also subsequently in the correspondence as also in Form SVLDRS-1 and also as quantified in Form SVLDRS-2. 15. A perusal of the record indicates that in the subsequent order dated 12th February 2020, as per respondents, the quantification was not final by 30th June 2019. Report of DGGI, Mumbai confirmed the facts according to the respondents. It is nowhere alleged in the said impugned order that the petitioner had admitted only part of the liability. In our view, the said order dated 12th February 2020 is contrary to Form SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A. 16. The respondents for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply and more particularly in paragraph 4.3.1 have taken a stand that the petitioner had admitted liability only for the 2nd half of the financial year i.e. from October 2015 to March 2016 and not for the 1st half i.e. April 2015 to September 2015. In our view, this reasons not forming part of the impugned order cannot be supplanted in the affidavit-inreply. No such reasons are required to be thus taken into consideration by this Court at this stage. 17. A perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to file Declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry, investigation or audit. 21. In our view, the principles of law laid down by this Court in case of Nabeel Construction Pvt. Ltd.(supra) would apply to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take a different view in the matter. In our view, the impugned order passed by the respondents is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions and also contrary to the objectives, reasons and intent of the said Scheme introduced by the Central Government to liquidate the huge outstanding litigation and free the taxpayers from the burden of litigation and investigation under the legacy taxes. 22. We accordingly pass the following order :- (i) The impugned order dated 12th February 2020 rejecting SVLDRS-1 declaration submitted by the petitioner is quashed and set aside; (ii) The petitioner is held eligible to file the said SVLDRS-1 declaration and to avail benefits under the said Scheme; (iii) The respondents shall pass a fresh order granting relief to the petitioner under the said Scheme on the basis that the petitioner is eligible to avail the benefits under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
