TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and has to be construed and interpreted liberally keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the schemes. In the facts of the instant case, the material on record clearly indicates that both the show-cause notices and both the appeals arising therefrom, which were pending adjudication at the time of promulgation of the SVLDRS arose between the very same petitioner and the respondents and were in respect of the same subject matter i.e., jaggery powder, the only difference being that the show-cause notices and the proceedings were relatable to two different time periods - keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the SVLDRS, which is to provide amnesty and resolution of disputes, in the facts of the instant case, the disputes between the petitioner and respondents having been undisputedly brought under the SVLDRS, both the disputes deserve to be resolved by making mutual adjustment with regard to the disputed pre-deposit made by the petitioner by consolidating and clubbing both the disputes, particularly when deduction of any amount paid by the petitioner declarant was liable to be made under Section 124 of the SVLDRS. The contention of the respondents that two separate show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be demanded. In order to buy peace with the department, even prior to issuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner had deposited a sum of approximately ₹ 2.96 crores with the respondents without prejudice to its rights and contentions that the said amount was only a disputed amount and not an admitted amount/liability payable by the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner sent a reply dated 16.02.2017 to the show-cause notice, not only denying the various allegations made in the show-cause notice but also putting forth several contentions in support of its claim that the jaggery powder did not attract excise duty and that the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount demanded by the respondents. (iv) By order in original dated 26.05.2017, respondent No.4 Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs confirmed the proposals in the show-cause notice demanding a total penalty of ₹ 3,00,58,913/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 28.08.2017 before the Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the same was pending adjudication. (v) Meanwhile, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, respondent Nos.3 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents did not accept the said form in respect of the second show-cause notice and did not adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner in respect of the first show-cause notice towards the amount demanded under the second show-cause notice. Under these circumstances, petitioner submitted his reasons for disagreement specifically contending that it had applied for relief under the SVLDRS in respect of both the appeals for both the periods and since the petitioner had deposited the excess disputed amount of ₹ 1,46,06,621/-, in respect of the first show-cause notice, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been given relief under the SVLDRS, the excess amount ought to be adjusted towards ₹ 25,00,000/- payable in respect of the second show-cause notice in terms of the SVLDRS. Accordingly, the petitioner requested for personal hearing in the matter. (ix) Meanwhile, the designated committee under the SVLDRS issued a discharge certificate dated 30.11.2019 in respect of the first show-cause notice. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the designated committee in respect of the second show-cause notice and submitted his detailed written submissions along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re appeals in Section 124(1)(a) and the words shall be deducted appearing in Section 124(2) of the SVLDRS are sufficient to indicate that excess disputed amounts deposited by the petitioner in respect of the first show-cause notice can be adjusted by deducting the same from the amounts payable under the second show-cause notice, particularly when the two appeals filed by the petitioner were pending and the SVLDRS was undisputedly made applicable to both the show-cause notices and the appeals preferred by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-H passed by the designated committee is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also. It is therefore contended that the impugned order at Annexure-H deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions regarding adjustment are to be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions: (a) M/s. Jagadish Advertising Vs. Designated Committee W.P.No.7801/2020 dated 19.08.2020 (b) M/s. Pierian Services Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) Binu Guptha Vs. Union of India (2021) 46 GSTL 37. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the excess disputed amount deposited by the petitioner by way of pre-deposit in respect of the first show-cause notice (SCN-1) can be adjusted towards the amount payable by the petitioner in respect of the second show-cause notice (SCN-2) under the SVLDRS. 9. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is necessary to state that the SVLDRS was promulgated with the object of providing amnesty and dispute resolution in order to unlock legacy cases locked up in litigation at various forums by providing relief/benefit to the assessee. This underlying object of the scheme has been noticed and reiterated by this Court as well as other Courts as can be seen in the various decisions referred to supra. It is also relevant to state that the SVLDRS is a beneficial scheme and has to be construed and interpreted liberally keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the schemes. With this background, it is necessary to extract Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund. Section 124 (2) of the SVLDRS referred to supra, will indicate that while the proviso specifically prohibits/bars refund of any excess amount paid by the assessee, the main provision of Section 124 enables deduction of any amount already paid by way of pre-deposit at any stage by the assessee. So also, Section 124(1)(a) contemplates that the calculation of the relief available to an assessee shall be calculated as provided in the said provision subject to the condition that the tax dues are either relatable to a show-cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the tax relief provided to an assessee can be referable to more than one show-cause notice having regard to the usage of the words one or more appeals arising out of such notice; it is needless to state that in respect of one show-cause notice, one appeal would be pending adjudication and in respect of more than one show-cause notice, more than one appeal would be pending; in other words, the relief available to the assessee/declarant under the SVLDRS encompassess not only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
