Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 288 - MADRAS HIGH COURTApplication filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme-3 (SVLDRS-3) - petitioner contends that the categorization of the petitioner's application as “arrears” was incorrect because the final hearing of the original adjudication took place after 30.06.2019 - HELD THAT:- The admitted position is that no hearing was held thereafter. While learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the adjudicating authority waited for one month thereafter, the fact that the adjudicating authority waited for one month before issuing orders does not mean that the final hearing took place after 30.06.2019. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner's case falls within the category “arrears” and not within the category “litigation” contains no infirmity. The other aspect on which the order was challenged was non-consideration of interest. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, sub-section 2 of Section 124 uses the expression “any amount paid as pre-deposit”. This provision was interpreted by this Court in M/S. VAMSEE OVERSEAS MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DESIGNATED COMMITTEE [2021 (2) TMI 801 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the applicant under the Scheme is entitled to credit in respect of interest payment also. In order to claim credit for interest, it is necessary for the petitioner to place on record relevant documents and establish the claim. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court. However, in order to enable the petitioner to place relevant documents before the respondents, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned order is set aside only with regard to the computation of pre-deposit amount and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off.
|