9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or permission to file written submission, which was granted. In the written submission, the appellant had pointed out that opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 20th January, 2020. Further, the appellant had mentioned that the Tribunal had directed deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order, and the direction was complied with. The copy of the order passed by the Tribunal was enclosed as exhibit 1. Further, the appellant enclosed the copies of the challan evidencing payment of pre-deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs, which was enclosed as exhibit 2 - the appellant submitted that it had paid pre-deposit amount of ₹ 20 lakhs and produced the copy of the challans evidencing payment of the pre-deposit, requested to issue Form SVLDRS 3 by reckoning the said predeposit amount. The Form SVLDRS 2A indicates that all the exhibits were uploaded along with the said Form. If such is the scheme of the Act and the Rules and if the authority has to take a decision based on the records produced by the appellant / assessee, it goes without saying that an order with reasons is required to be passed. Probably, the electronic Form SVLDRS 3 does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition solely on the ground that the appellant had approached the Court after expiry of the scheme, which expired on 30th June, 2020. The correctness of the order has been questioned before in this appeal. 3. We have heard Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The appellant / assessee was issued an order of adjudication dated 24th February, 2009 demanding service tax in respect of the transactions done by the appellant. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (in short the Tribunal ). In the said appeal, an application for stay of the order in original was sought for and the Tribunal granted an order of interim stay subject to the condition that the appellant deposits a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. The appellant complied with the said order and filed compliance report dated 2nd June, 2011 evidencing deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs between 7th May, 2011 to 16th June, 2011 along with copies of the relevant challans. The appeal was pending before the Tribunal. On 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he written submissions. 8. The appellant, therefore, having left with no other option submitted a representation on 19th February, 2020 to the Designated Committee once again pointing out the error and also enclosing all the documents, which were already placed before the Committee along with the application under Section 127 of the Act. No order was passed by the Designated Committee but the appellant was communicated with a notice of demand dated 26th July, 2021. To be noted that the scheme came to close on 30th June, 2020. The demand dated 26th July, 2021 even if it is taken to be a deemed rejection of the application under Section 127 of the Act, it ought to have been communicated to the appellant well before the close of the scheme, i.e. 30th June, 2020, which the Designated Committed failed to do. When the appellant questioned the same by filing the writ petition on 11th August, 2021, the learned Single Bench was of the view that the appellant having approached the writ Court after the close of the scheme, cannot be granted any relief. 9. In our considered view, the object of the scheme has to be looked into while deciding as to what relief the assessee would be entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the declaration filed by the assessee. 11. This necessitated a circular to be issued by the Central Board dated 17th March, 2021 in C.B.I. C. Instruction No.1/2021-CX. For better appreciation, the same is quoted hereinbelow:- C.B.I. C. Instruction No.1/2021-CX, dated 17-3-2021 F.No.267/41/2021-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs, New Delhi Subject: Manual processing of declaration filed under SVLDRS, 2019 in order to comply with the directions of the Hon ble High Courts-Regarding. References are being received in the Board from the CGST Zones in respect of Writ petitions filed by aggrieved declarants before various Hon ble High Courts against the decision of the concerned Designated Committees taken under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS), 2019. The cases in which the Hon ble High Court has decided in favour of the declarant and remanded the matter back to the concerned Designated Committee for fresh decision are referred to the Board for grant of permission for manual processing of the subject declaration so as to comply with the directions of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses of the scheme. In the case in hand, the tax dues is not in dispute. Section 123 enumerates the reliefs available under the scheme; Section 124 speaks about declaration under the Scheme; Section 126 deals with the issue of statement by Designated Committee and Section 127 deals with rectification of errors. As Section 127 would have a bearing on the case on hand, the same is quoted hereinbelow: Section 127. Within thirty days of the date of issue of a statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant, the designated committee may modify its order only to correct an arithmetical error or clerical error, which is apparent on the face of record, on such error being pointed out by the declarant or suo motu, by the designated committee. The assessee made an application electronically as required under the scheme of 2019. The screen shot of the uploaded SVLDRS-1 shows that the appeal number, the date of appeal, the forum, the order in original number and date are required to be mentioned apart from other details pertaining to the basic excise duty, cess etc. In terms of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 21.08.2019, declaration under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the communication rejecting the application was quashed and the Designated Committee was directed to decide the application afresh. Further, in the case of M/s. Sobha Limited vs. Union of India Anr. (CWP 10804-2020 (O M) dated 25.09.020 the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh had considered an identical issue and the order of rejection of the declaration filed in Form SVLDRS-1 was set aside and direction was issued to the designated authority to decide the application afresh. Identical direction was issued in the case of Vaishali Sharma vs. UOI Anr. reported in MANU/DE/1529/2020. In the said decision the Court went a step further to observe that an opportunity of hearing must have been given to the assessee before rejecting the declaration. Further, we note that in the case of Assam Cricket Association vs. UOI reported in MANU/GH/0280/2020 the department, in fact, considered and accepted to reconsider the application of the declarant 13. As pointed out earlier, the appellant had exercised the opportunity provided under Rule 6 (4) of the said Rules. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 provides for ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs cannot be reckoned (which cannot be done by the Designated Committee as the statute provides for the same), the Designated Committee was bound to give reasons in the remarks column while issuing Form SVLDRS 3. 15. Therefore, the decision of the Designated Committee has to be held to be devoid of reasons and outcome of total nonapplication of mind. Thus, we are fully satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Form SVLDRS 3 is set aside and the Designated Committee is directed to reckon the pre-deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs made by the appellant pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal and issue fresh Form SVLDRS 3. 17. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue would submit that the scheme had come to an end on 30th June, 2020 and therefore, the Designated Committee has become functus officio. Similar objection was raised by the revenue in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. ors. supra) and the same was rejected by holding that the cut off date for filing the declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
