9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has filed a copy of Order in Original No.24/2023-GST(ADC) dated 31.03.2023. wherein the demand proposed in SCN No.4/2020(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 has confined the demand. The petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme, although the Designated Committee of the 1st respondent has concluded that the Committee examined the case and found that an amount of Rs. 8,36,913/- was paid towards interest and the SVLDRS scheme does not allow the set off of interest against duty liability. Accordingly the Committee decided to accept only the pre deposit of duty of Rs. 20,76,274/- towards pre deposit. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Win Power Engineering (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director T.K.Kumar Vs. The Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 [ 2022 (12) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has held The question of issuing statement by the Committee under Section 127 read with Rule 6 of the SVLDRS Rules, 2019 would arise only where the application filed itself falls within the four corners of Section 124(1)(d) as extracted above. Only where there was quantification of tax or duty in arrears, the scheme was applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) (d) e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th date of June, 2019; 5. After, the petitioner had transitioned the Credit, the Audit Wing, namely the office of the 3rd respondent had raised queries and by a communication dated 17.12.2018 bearing C.No.III/10/41/2018-C7 G2 - Misc., informed the petitioner that the petitioner had wrongly transitioned an amount of Rs. 17,21,05,852/- out of Rs. 160,75,20,741/- as Input Tax Credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was called upon to update the details in the worksheet, which was sent to the petitioner on 04.12.2018 and submit the same to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was also called upon to furnish the details of credit already reversed in the prescribed format. The relevant portion of the aforesaid communication reads as under:- "Gentlemen, Sub: Tran-1 Credit Verification M/s.Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., - Reg. --- Please refer to the Tran-1 credit verification of M/s.Michelin India Pvt Ltd situated at the above address a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the amount declared by the petitioner pertains to the CENVAT wrongly availed which is covered under the scope of the 'indirect tax enactment' as per Section 122(a) of the Scheme and that the same is clarified in CBIC's Circular dated 07.08.2019 that the said demand has also been quantified on 17.12.2018, which is before 30.06.2019 cut-off date provided under the Scheme and as per Circular 29.10.2019, at para 2(i) therein, even audit proceedings that are concluded before 30.06.2019 is covered under the SVLDR Scheme. 12. During the interregnum, the petitioner was also issued with Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2020 after the petitioner opted to settle the dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on 14.01.2020 under the "Investigation, enquiry or audit Category" and under such category " Audit". 13. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to settle the dispute under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 under the aforesaid category viz., "Investigation, enquiry or audit Category" . Under the SVLDR Scheme different cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailment of credit over and above the eligible credit 42,91,303 5 Availment of credit without documents 4,61,92,752 6 Non-reversal of credit taken on intellectual Property Right (IPR) and market related study services 2,40,75,313 7 Transition of the balance of the EC and SHEC carried forward in the ER-1 returns. 1,82,22,113 Total 31,23,18,218 19. It is thus clear that the petitioner was barred from filing the application / declaration under the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019 in view of Section 125(1)(e) of The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. as there was no quantified. If indeed there was a quantification, a Show Cause Notice No.4/2020-(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 would have been issued to the petitioner within the period of 35 days from 14.01.2020 the date of the declaration filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1. On the date of hearing when the case was reserved for orders on 10.07.2023, the respondent has filed a copy of Order in Original No.24/2023-GST(ADC) dated 31.03.2023. wherein the demand proposed in SCN No.4/2020(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 has confined the demand. 20. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral excise officer regarding conducting of audit is received; (m)''enquiry or investigation'', under any of the indirect tax enactment, shall include the following actions, namely:-- i. search of premises; ii issuance of summons; iii. requiring the production of accounts, documents or other evidence; iv. recording of statements; 123. For the purposes of the Scheme, "tax dues" means-- (c) where an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the declarant, the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 124. (1) Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows:-- (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit against the declarant and the amount quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 is-- (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; 136. Thus, a person is not entitled to avail the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019, if there was no quantification of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2019, a Declaration could have been filed. 148. However, it is not the self declared quantification of a Declarant of "tax dues" which will entitle the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. The scheme brings a closure to the tax dispute with issuance of certificate under Section 129 of SVLDRS, 2019. It has to be a quantification which ought to have been accepted by the Investigating Wing or Audit Wing of the Department. 149. The question of issuing statement by the Committee under Section 127 read with Rule 6 of the SVLDRS Rules, 2019 would arise only where the application filed itself falls within the four corners of Section 124(1)(d) as extracted above. Only where there was quantification of tax or duty in arrears, the scheme was applicable." 23. Thus, the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Usha Martin Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner of CGST & Ex., Jamshedpur, 2023 (68) GSTL 338 (Jhar.) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has of no avail. 24. Therefore, there is no merits in this writ petition. The Writ Petition has to therefore fail and is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition accordingly, stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
