Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTRejection of application filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - the pre-deposit could not be verified, and therefore, the claim of the pre-deposit was denied - whether the rejection of the Petitioners' application was completely arbitrary? - HELD THAT:- The Respondents did not dispute the Petitioners' argument based on the Circular issued on 12 December 2019, which states that deposits made after the show cause notice but before adjudication should be considered under the Scheme. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has answered affirmatively to the Frequently Asked Question No.26 as to whether pre-deposit made at any stage should be taken into account. The Respondents did not deny the applicability of the Circular or the interpretation given by the Petitioners. The Respondents have cast doubt on the payment made on 10 March 2012, arguing that the challans cannot be considered as a pre-deposit against the show cause notice. However, the reply does not provide any other reason for this doubt, and it is only based on the fact that the payment was made after the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondents did not comment on the letter dated 30 December 2019, where the Petitioners submitted the challans to the Principal Commissioner, CGST, in support of their claim. This letter was submitted following the hearing on 27 December 2019, but it was not mentioned in the impugned order or in the reply. There is no valid reason to deny the Rs. 23,07,200/- deposited by the Petitioners on 10 March 2012 through challans as pre-deposit for the purpose of the Scheme. The Central Government introduced the Scheme to resolve past disputes, ensure compliance and increase revenue. When interpreting the statute and circular, the aim of the Scheme must be kept in mind. The authorities' approach should not be excessively technical but instead geared towards achieving the Scheme's objectives - the Respondents' objections were unnecessary and went against the spirit of the Scheme, as well as the factual situation. The impugned order dated 13 February 2020 issued by Respondent No.3- Designated Committee is quashed and set aside - the Respondents are directed to examine the material placed on record by the Petitioners and to decide as regards the aspect of section 124(2) in respect of the amount of Rs.23,07,200/- - petition allowed.
|