TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therein, the provisions of Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019 would have to be seen as empowering the Department to treat the declarations as never made, and to initiate proceedings for recovery of the tax amounts as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, governing the levy and collection of Service Tax - The Department, however, has not chosen to deny the petitioner the benefit of the scheme, but has merely suggested a category change in respect of the declarations filed by the appellant. While the appellant had declared that the particulars of outstanding tax were based on returns filed without payment of the tax, the Department treated the declarations as voluntary disclosures . The effect of this category ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The writ petitioner company has filed declarations, as evidenced by Exts.P5, P6 and P7, in Form SVLDRS 01 on 31.12.2019 claiming the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme']. The said Scheme contemplates the disclosure by an assessee of unpaid taxes pertaining to previous years, for the purposes of claiming tax relief as also relief from interest and penalty that can be levied/imposed on the assessee under the respective tax legislation. In the instant case, in the declarations filed by the petitioner, it had shown payment of certain amounts by way of tax during the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was obliged to pay the entire tax amount outstanding as per the declarations, and would only get the benefit of waiver of penalty, interest, late fees etc. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugned the said rectification orders inter alia on the contention that the rectification orders had been passed beyond the time limit prescribed for the same under the Scheme. A further point that was urged in the writ petition was that the rectification orders had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and without following the procedure contemplated under the Scheme for rectifying orders earlier passed by the Department. 3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found force in the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oad returns pertaining to the relevant period in the website of the Department, such attempts did not fructify, and the appellant was not able to proceed beyond the stage of preparing a draft of the returns. As a result, the returns were never uploaded onto the system. Based on the the material made available before us at the time of hearing we are also convinced that the inability to upload the returns cannot be attributed to any defect in the system maintained by the Department. We have therefore to proceed on the assumption that no returns had been filed by the appellant during the relevant period, and the statements to the contrary, in the declarations, were factually incorrect. We may also observe, at this stage, that although the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re continue to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the appellant, albeit on terms different from what he had sought. We find that the stand of the Department is in fact beneficial to the appellant especially since the Department had the option of treating the petitioner's declarations as 'never made', and thereby denying it the benefits under the scheme and initiating proceedings for recovery of the tax amount, together with penalty and interest in accordance with the statutory provisions. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rectification orders were passed beyond the time prescribed under the statutory provisions, and further, that the procedural formalities required to be complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses of the Scheme, it has not chosen to do so, thereby granting the appellant the benefit of the Scheme to the extent applicable. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal. 9. Before parting with this case, we might observe that in Ext.P12 rectification order pertaining to the period 2016-17 (April September), the Department has shown an amount of ₹ 9,94,359/- as payable by the appellant under the Scheme. Going through the details furnished before us by the parties in the course of these proceedings, we find that an amount of ₹ 11,18,763/- has already been paid by the appellant towards tax during the said period. This would mean that, as against the outsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
