TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount, under the scheme, the Petitioner would have cleared its entire liability to the central excise authorities. The compensation being paid by the 6th Respondent is ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. This would mean that the entire due of the Department is being cleared and a surplus of ₹ 2,03,81,710/- would remain. The stand of the Respondents appears to be that the Petitioner should raise a further sum of ₹ 2,56,91,472/- to be paid under the correct head and then seek refund of the compensation amount of ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. The stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Solicitor General), M.V.J.K. KUMAR (Sr SC for CEC Ser Tax), Krishna C V Grandhi, GP For Commercial Tax (AP) ORDER: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner is a manufacturer of sponge iron. In the course of its operations, the Central Excise authorities had attached the goods of the petitioner on account of non-payment of central excise. Initially, 1636 mts. of sponge iron, valued at ₹ 2,37,18,155/-, was attached on 29.09.2016. Subsequently, 4300 mts. of sponge iron was attached on 18.01.2019 to recover an amount of ₹ 8,38,09,828/-. At that stage, the Government of India had introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceive the entire compensation that would be paid by the 6th Respondent and adjust a sum of ₹ 2,56,91,472/- under the scheme and transfer the remaining payment to the Assistant Commissioner of State GST, Ananthapur Division. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent had addressed a letter dated 13.11.2019 to the Branch Manager of the 6th respondent, calling upon the 6th respondent to issue a demand draft of the compensation payable by the 6th respondent in favour of the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Tax, Tirupati and not to release any amount to the petitioner without prior approval of the department. The petitioner had reiterated its request of 10.11.2019, by another letter dated 27.11.2019. 4. In reply to the said requests of the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayers may generate it by clicking on make payment at the bottom of Form 3. In other words, the SVLDR scheme does not have any provision whereby the Department can adjust/appropriate any amounts received by way of auction or from insurance companies, etc. In the light of the said situation, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. 7. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the official respondents that any amounts paid by the 6th respondent-insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to ask for adjustment of the compensation amount payable by the 6th res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2,03,81,710/- would remain. The stand of the Respondents appears to be that the Petitioner should raise a further sum of ₹ 2,56,91,472/- to be paid under the correct head and then seek refund of the compensation amount of ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. 10. The stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme. As pointed out by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, in Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited v. Union of India and ors., CDJ 2020 DHC 640, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 as its intent is to unload ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
