Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2021 (9) TMI 522 - HC - Central ExciseRejection of declaration by the petitioner on SVLDRS-1 - seeking settlement of dispute under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - short payment of Central Excise duty against shortage of stock - CBIC Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.8.2019 - HELD THAT - In the present case Section 133 of the Scheme is pari materia (in material parts) to Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Under clause 10(g) of Circular issued by the CBIC under Section 133 of the Scheme the CBIC had forsaken the power it wielded to its own advantage under the Scheme. Thus it waived that advantage and relaxed the rigor of law - to make the Scheme more purposeful and successful by maximizing amicable/consented resolution of legacy disputes under all indirect taxation enactments in the context of the imminent enforcement of the G.S.T. Regime at the relevant time. That being the emphasis laid by the CBIC it clearly sought to maximize the number and quantum of settlements under the Scheme. The CBIC has only clarified the meaning to be given to the word quantified used under the Scheme to include thereunder any duty liability admitted (in writing) by a person (during an enquiry or investigation) as a written communication spoken of under Section 121(r) of the Scheme. Also Rs. 45, 38, 231/- is the exact amount quantified while issuing the subsequent show-cause-notice dated 06.09.2019. The reasoning given by the Designated Committee in the impugned order runs contrary to law. The Designated Committee was obligated to deal with the declaration filed by the petitioner on merits. No discretion was vested in the Designated Committee to take a different view. Even though the Circular has not been referred to or dealt by the Designated Committee by virtue of the clear language of Section 133 of the Scheme it was further obligated to necessarily act in accordance with that law. The impugned order is set aside. In absence of any other dispute or objection the matter is remitted to the Designated Committee to issue the necessary SVLDRS-3 within a period of thirty days from today - Petition allowed by way of remand.
|