Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTRejection 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.
|