TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled under the 'litigation' category instead of 'voluntary disclosure' category and grant consequential benefits. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2. Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent has rejected the petitioner's rectification application on the ground that Section 128 confers limited powers upon the designated committee and it is not empowered to rectify errors committed by the petitioner/applicant/ declarant/assessee. 3. He emphasises that the error in the present case was a 'clerical' error that was apparent on the face of the record and the designated committee was statutorily obliged to rectify the same. He states that if the rectification is carried out, no undue benefit would accrue to the petitioner. 4. He submits that Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is pari materia to Section 128 of SVLDRS, has been held by Courts to include in its sweep the errors committed by the importer/declarant. In support of his submission, he relies upon judgment of the Madras High Court in CC Chennai Vs. Volvo India (P) Ltd., 2019 (365) ELT 802 (Mad.) wherein it has been held as under:- "9. In Hero Cycles v. Union of India report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itigation" category. According to him, the declaration form is very clear and there is no scope for committing any mistake. He contends that the petitioner has been reckless in filing the declaration form and she cannot now seek to reopen the proceedings for her own benefit. 7. He further submits that the scope of Section 128 pertains to powers of modification / rectification of an order passed by the designated committee and that too to correct an arithmetical or a clerical error apparent on the face of record only. 8. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned senior standing counsel for respondent no. 2 emphasises that the mistake in the present case has been committed by the petitioner and there is no rectification possible in such a case as it does not fall within the ambit of Section 128. He submits that the scope of rectification under Section 128 is limited and the designated committee cannot travel beyond the assigned rules and extend any undue benefit to any assessee under the Scheme. 9. He further submits that the provisions of an amnesty scheme have to be interpreted strictly and, in support of his submission he places reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant, the designated committee may modify its order only to correct an arithmetical error or clerical error, which is apparent on the face of record, on such error being pointed out by the declarant or suo motu, by the designated committee." 12. From the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that the designated committee can modify its order to correct an arithmetical error or clerical error which is apparent on the face of record. An error/mistake apparent on the face of record means a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it. [See Asstt. Commr., Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.)]. 13. The admitted case is that the petitioner was eligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS. In fact, in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 24th October, 2018, the petitioner had filed the declaration dated 30th December, 2019. It is not disputed that at the time of filing the declaration, the said show cause notice was pending. 14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnated committee. Consequently, an error committed by the assessee, which inevitably leads to an error in the order of the designated committee, can be rectified by the designated committee under Section 128 of SVLDRS. 18. This Court is also of the view that if the narrow approach adopted by the respondent no.2 is accepted, the same would defeat the very intent and purpose of SVLDRS. This Court in Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 3934/2020 has held as under:- "18. This Court is further of the opinion that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 and the circulars issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as their 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." 19. The judgment in Manpreet Engineering & Const. Co. (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case in so far as the assessee therein had not complied with provisions of the Scheme in so far as it had not paid the taxes within the stipulated time and was thus disqualified to avail benefits thereunder. However, in the present case it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e party was otherwise not entitled, would definitely have to be construed to be an incurable mistake but at the same an inadvertent mistake which may also creep in due to an oversight or because of a callous attitude of the person making the claim but the ultimate result of such mistake would not accrue a benefit which he otherwise would not have been entitled can be accepted to be a curable mistake. 8. 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 Rs. 11,48,82,644..00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eight Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). In our view the mistake made by the petitioner by not stating about the penalty imposed upon them in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be said to be a mistake by which the petitioner claimed an undue benefit 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 ma....