Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1282 - HC - Service TaxSabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - permission to file claim under the correct category under the SVLDR Scheme - condonation of delay in filing application - seeking not to declare the petitioner as defaulter under SVLDR Scheme and not to disallow the benefits made available to it under the SVLDR Scheme - HELD THAT:- Section 123(a)(i) of the Scheme interalia permits eligibility of an assessee whose appeal arising out of an order-in-original is pending as of June 30, 2019, for consideration of the total amount of duty which is being disputed in the appeal. Admittedly the petitioner’s appeal challenging the order in original dated March 16, 2018 was pending on the cut-off date, i.e., on June 30, 2019, as the same was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) at a later date, that is, on July 9, 2019. This apart, the petitioner’s application under the scheme was also considered to be appropriate as Form SVLDR-3 was generated calling upon the petitioner to deposit ₹ 40,20,877/-, the payment whereof was to be made on or before June 30, 2020, which the petitioner did not make - petitioner had inadvertently filed its declaration under SVLDR Rule 3(2)(b), i.e., amount in arrears, instead of SVLDR Rule 3(2)(a), which is under the category where the show cause notice of one or more appeals is pending as on June 30, 2019. It appears that such mistake was a bonafide mistake of having filed the ‘SVLDR form’ under a wrong category. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme, if any other conditions under the scheme are being fulfilled by the petitioner. Condonation of delay in filing application - HELD THAT:- The condonation of delay application was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the assumption that he had no power to condone delay after 90 days, though in fact the appeal was filed within 90 days. Considering the fact that the order-in-original dated March 16, 2018 was received by the petitioner on March 24, 2018 and the appeal was filed on June 21, 2018, which is on the 88th day, in our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in rejecting the appeal as time barred. On this count, the order dated March 16, 2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), would be required to be set aside and the petitioner’s appeal to be restored to the file of the appellate authority. Petition allowed in part.
|