TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an error in filling in the details in Form-SVLDRS as Nil , especially when there is an onus on the Department to verify the records. The technical glitch asserted by the petitioner while filling in the details in Form SVLDRS-1 is not seriously contested. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner is not extended an opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of section 127(3) of the SVLDR Scheme with the issuance of Form SVLDRS-2 and an error apparent in Form SVLDRS-3 cannot be controverted, and also in view of the fact that the SVLDR scheme is envisaged as a time bound exercise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for issuance of Discharge Certificate as contemplated under Section 127(8) of the SVLDR Scheme. The writ petition is allowed in part directing the Designated Committee to expeditiously consider issuance of Discharge Certificate to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 127(8) of the SVLDR Scheme. - WRIT PETITION NO.11220/2020 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 23-10-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD PETITIONER (By SRI.B.G. CHIDANANDA URS., ADVOCATE) RESPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the cases that are still subject to levy of Central Excise such as tobacco products [Beeris] falling in fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The present applied for for the relief of NCCD to be paid on Beeris. Since there is specific exclusion in Sec. 125(1)(h) of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, the application is accordingly rejected by the Designated Committee. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Designated Committee has issued Form No.SVLDRS- 3 without application of mind. The petitioner is engaged in conduct of Business Exhibition Services holding Centralised Service Tax Registration No. AAAC11369MSD 002 and indisputably is not engaged in the business of any tobacco product. Nevertheless, Form No.SVLDRS-3 is issued with a remark that is completely extraneous to the petitioner. There is an undeniable apparent error in the issuance of Form No.SVLDRS-3. The petitioner being entitled to seek modification of the Form No.SVLDRS-3 under Section 128 of the SVLDR Scheme because of this apparent error has submitted an application for rectification but the Department has not taken any action on the petitioner s application. 5. The learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to a declarant to put forward his/her comment on the computation of Tax Relief. But, the petitioner has been issued with Form No.SVLDRS-3 without such opportunity. The petitioner is denied with this reasonable opportunity provided under section 127(3) of the SVLDR Scheme in terms of the procedure contemplated in Rule 6 of the SVLDR Scheme Rules, 2019 to indicate disagreement with the estimate. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs as prayed for. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not dispute that the remark in Form No.SVLDRS-3 could not have been made in the present case because the petitioner is not engaged in any business associated with tobacco and the petitioner is actually engaged in Business Exhibition Services . The learned counsel also does not dispute that in case of an arithmetical error or clerical error which is apparent on the face of record, the Designated Committee, on an application by a declarant or otherwise, can modify Form No.SVLDRS-3 in exercise of the jurisdiction and section 128 of the SVLDR Scheme. However, the learned counsel subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or investigation or audit would be the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019. The tax relief in these cases would be as mentioned in section 124(1)(d) i.e., in cases where the duty demand so quantified is ₹ 50 lakhs or lesser, the tax relief is 70%. A declarant in this case would therefore be required to pay only 30% of the quantified. 12. Further, the provisions of section 124(2) stipulate that the tax relief calculated under section 124 (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. But the proviso to this subsection stipulates that if the amount of pre-deposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund. 13. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has also issued Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
