TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 10344/2021 & CM APPL. Nos.31844-45/2021 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Ms. Preeti Goel Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advs.. Respondents Through: Mr. N.K. Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI /R-1. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel for R-2 R3 with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Adv. NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the proposal of the petitioner submitted under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (herein after referred to as SVLDRS) vide application being ARN No. LD3112190022236 along with Form SVLDRS-1 dated 31.12.2019 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till such time the above application is considered and decided by the respondent no. 3. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the abovementioned application under the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding service tax liability to the tune of ₹ 87,88,387/- excluding interest and GST liability to the tune of Rs. 1,34,25,218/- excluding Interest...... (Emphasis supplied) 6. A reading of the above would clearly show that this is not a quantification of demand by the respondents but a unilateral admission of liability by the petitioner itself. 7. In Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme and Another (Judgment dated 22.02.2021 in W.P. (C) 2408/2021), this Court on a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 2019, held that in terms of Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019, the word quantified means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment; a unilateral quantification by the petitioner does not render him eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme. It was further held that the benefits of the scheme would be available to only such cases where the Department quantifies the amount and not the Assessee. The relevant extracts from the judgment are as under: 10. Petitioner filed a declaration on the premise that its case is covered under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount involved has not been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. Thus, Section 125(1)(e) in a way compliments Section 123(c) of the Act and quantification of tax dues is imperative for a declarant to become eligible for applying under the scheme. The meaning of the word quantified has been extended and broadened, obviously keeping in view the objective of the Scheme by way of Circulars dated 12th December, 2019 and 27th August, 2019. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: A) Circular dated 12th December, 2019 2. The references received by the Board have been examined, and the issues raised therein are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and Rules made thereunder, as follows: xxx xxx xxx (v) For the purpose of eligibility under the Scheme in some of the categories such as litigation, audit/enquiry/ investigation etc., the relevant date is 30-6-2019. However, it may so happen that the facts of a case may change subsequently. For instance, in a case under audit/investigation/enquiry where the tax dues have been quantified on or before 30.6.2019, a sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on or before the 30th day of June, 2019. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the communication dated 18th June, 2019 issued to the Superintendent, Anti Evasion Group-1, Central Excise Service Tax can be considered to be as an admission of duty liability so as to render the petitioner eligible under the SVLDRS. 14. Petitioner s case falls within the ambit of enquiry or investigation , as the Petitioner was issued summons dated 10.05.2019 by the Anti-Evasion Group 4, Central Excise Service Tax. In respect of such cases, by virtue of the aforesaid circulars, the Respondents have clarified that the benefit of SVLDRS can also be given to those cases where the duty involved is quantified before 30.06.2019. 15. Since quantification has co-relation and is interlinked with tax relief under the scheme, and the Petitioner has not made a voluntary disclosure, but has rather approached for settlement in respect of case under investigation, we find merit in the submission of the Revenue that unilateral quantification by the Petitioner by writing the letter/communication dated 18.06.2019 cannot render him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
