TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon which a legal right is claimed so that the mistake made can be construed to be an act of misleading the authorities to claim a benefit which otherwise a party is not entitled or the mistake made was more of inadvertent nature, which can also be terms as a callous mistake, which does not put the party making such mistake on an undue advantageous position so as to make them entitled to a benefit which they are otherwise not. In the instant case, the mistake made by the petitioner was that the penalty imposed was stated to be zero whereas it is already on record that the respondent authorities had imposed a penalty of ₹ 11,48,82,644.00. The mistake made by the petitioner by not stating about the penalty imposed upon them in For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four) was imposed on the petitioner under the 1st Proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Against such levy and imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata. In the appeal, the mandatory deposit of 75% of the levied amount was also paid by the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, a scheme called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( in short Scheme 2019) was introduced under Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994. As provided in Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act 1994, amongst the various other reliefs that ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration was made. 6. In the circumstance, the only issue before the Court would be whether the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under Scheme 2019 would stand rejected as because of the aforesaid mistake of not mentioning the penalty or a different view can also be taken in the matter. Admittedly the Finance Act, 1994 wherein, Scheme 2019 has been incorporated does not provide for any provision for re submitting an application claiming the benefit under the scheme. 7. In the circumstance, we are required to look into the matter from the perspective as to whether by not mentioning the penalty in the Form SVLDRS-1, the petitioner had committed an incurable mistake so as to disentitle the petitioner from the benefits under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said to be a mistake by which the petitioner claimed an undue benfit which they otherwise are not entitled under the law. When we look into the Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme. Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019 may be such that the benefit of exemption, may even be applicable to the amount of penalty imposed, in which event, the petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to a greater exemption if the amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning the penalty. 9. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is an agreed position of the parties that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
