2022 (11) TMI 1394 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of benefit under the SVLDR Scheme - respondents had quantified the tax payable by the petitioner prior to June 30 2019 not withstanding pendency of an enquiry or an investigation or audit on or before June 30 2019 - HELD THAT - The material on record in the instant case discloses that on September 12 2018 itself the respondent had quantified the amount payable by the petitioner as Rs. 99, 00, 000 out of which the petitioner had already paid Rs. 57, 02, 485 much prior to June 30 2019 which was the cut-off date under the SVLDR Scheme and clarified by the circulars dated August 27 2019 and December 12 2019 issued by the respondent. This court has come to the conclusion that so long as the respondents had quantified the tax payable by the petitioner prior to June 30 2019 not withstanding pendency of an enquiry or an investigation or audit on or before June 30 2019 the petitioner-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme. In Nikitha Build Tech s case 2022 (11) TMI 1148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT this court held since the petitioner has already made payment of the amount in respect of which he had claimed the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme much prior to submitting form SVLDRS-1 I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme and rejection of the same by the respondents by issuing the impugned communication is clearly arbitrary illegal and contrary to law as well as the provisions of the said Scheme and the same deserves to be quashed. In the peculiar/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and in the light of the judgments of this court the respondents committed an error in not only passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for benefit under the SVLDR Scheme but also erred in passing the impugned order and consequently the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme).
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme.
3. Applicability of the judgments and circulars issued by the court and respondents.
4. Bar of res judicata concerning the earlier petition filed by the petitioner.

Issue-wise
Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Rejection of the Petitioner's Application under the SVLDR Scheme
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated September 9, 2020, which rejected their application under the SVLDR Scheme. The respondents had previously issued notices and show-cause notices quantifying the service tax payable by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's declaration seeking benefits under the SVLDR Scheme and the payment of a significant portion of the demanded amount before the cut-off date (June 30, 2019), the respondents rejected the application. The court found that the rejection was erroneous and contrary to the SVLDR Scheme's provisions and relevant circulars.

2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Benefits under the SVLDR Scheme
The petitioner contended that they were entitled to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme as the amount payable had been quantified by the respondents before the cut-off date. The court referred to previous judgments, including Bioneeds India (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax and Nikitha Build Tech (P) Limited v. Union of India, which established that the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme applies if the tax payable is quantified before June 30, 2019, even if an enquiry, investigation, or audit is pending. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme as the amount had been quantified and partially paid before the cut-off date.

3. Applicability of the Judgments and Circulars Issued by the Court and Respondents
The court referred to several judgments and circulars to support the petitioner's claim. The circular dated August 27, 2019, clarified that cases where the duty demand was quantified before June 30, 2019, are eligible under the SVLDR Scheme. The court emphasized that the petitioner's admission and quantification of the service tax payable before the cut-off date entitled them to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme. The court also cited the judgments in Bioneeds India (P) Limited and Nikitha Build Tech (P) Limited to reinforce its decision.

4. Bar of Res Judicata Concerning the Earlier Petition Filed by the Petitioner
The respondents argued that the petition was barred by res judicata due to the disposal of an earlier petition (W.P. No. 8051 of 2021). However, the court clarified that the earlier petition challenged a different order, and there was no determination of issues or questions in that case. Therefore, the bar of res judicata did not apply to the present petition.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders dated December 30, 2019, and September 9, 2020. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's application under the SVLDR Scheme, considering the relevant judgments, circulars, and observations made in the order. The court directed the respondents to provide a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner during the reconsideration process.

← Previous Next →