Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2021 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 67 - HC - Service TaxSabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - delay in payment due to adjustment of amounts paid by the insurance company against the payment under the scheme - stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme - HELD THAT:- The dues payable by the Petitioner has now been crystallised at ₹ 2,56,91,472/-. On payment of this amount, under the scheme, the Petitioner would have cleared its entire liability to the central excise authorities. The compensation being paid by the 6th Respondent is ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. This would mean that the entire due of the Department is being cleared and a surplus of ₹ 2,03,81,710/- would remain. The stand of the Respondents appears to be that the Petitioner should raise a further sum of ₹ 2,56,91,472/- to be paid under the correct head and then seek refund of the compensation amount of ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. The stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme. As pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited v. Union of India and ors., [2020 (8) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under the Central Excise and Service Tax and to allow the businesses to make a fresh beginning. The stand of the Respondents in this regard is clearly hyper technical and arbitrary. The further stand of the Respondents that the last date for payment has expired on 30.09.2020 is also not acceptable. The delay in receiving payment is on account of the refusal of the Respondent No.3 to adjust the compensation amount payable by the 6th Respondent against the crystallised due under the scheme. The 6th Respondent had also issued the discharge voucher on 29.9.2020 and as such it cannot be said that the offer to pay had not been made before the last date. The Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent or such authorised officer on behalf of the central excise department shall sign and submit the Joint discharge voucher to the 6th Respondent within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order - Petition disposed off.
|