9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the petitioner's case and also quash and set aside the order dated 05.05.2020 rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner bearing Application Reference No LD0312190000359 dated 03.12.2019 vide letter dated 05.05.2020 and to direct respondent no. 2 to process the same on merits. The petitioner has further prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 rejecting the SVLDRS application filed by the petitioner and to direct respondent no. 2 to process the same on merits. 3. The facts in brief are as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a private limited company for providing taxable service of installation of HSRPs on all vehicles. It is the case of the petitioner that it is also registered with the service tax department and subsequently registered under the GST regime having registration no. 24AABCF8939R2ZU. 3.2 According to the petitioner, one of the key announcements in the Budget 2019 was the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short 'the Scheme'/ 'SVLDRS'). The objective of the scheme which was enacted with effect from 01.08.2019 was to settle the legacy legal disputes relating to Central Excise & Service Tax pending before variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was rejected on the ground that the declared tax had not been quantified and communicated on or before 30.06.2019. 3.6 That communication was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No. 8495 of 2020 before this court. The petition was disposed of on 27.07.2020 with an observation that it was open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Gandhinagar. The court further observed that on such representation being filed along with a certified copy of the order, the Commissioner shall look into the same and pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of four weeks. 3.7 Pursuant to the directions so issued and on a representation being made by the petitioner on 25.08.2020, by the impugned order dated 07.09.2020, the request of the petitioner for extension of benefits under the scheme was rejected. 4. Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take the court through the impugned order dated 07.09.2020, perusal of which especially the discussions and the findings would indicate that in the perception of the department, the petitioner had applied online u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9] relied upon by the department in the context of the perception of the department that the tax dues were not quantified before 30.06.2019 by taking the court through the relevant paragraphs of the decision to indicate that that was a case where there was a discrepancy of the admitted tax liability inasmuch as what was admitted by the assessee was Rs. 1,75,63,982/- whereas post the investigation the show-cause notice amount was Rs. 13,77,13,890/-. Therefore, there was a dispute on the quantification of the tax liability. 4.5 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Seventh Plane Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2020(8) TMI 343 (Del). The Delhi High Court therein opined that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 which was with an intent to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under the Central Excise and Service Tax. He would also rely on the FAQs placed on record particularly question no. 45 with respect to cases under inquiry indicating that a letter intimating duty tax demands so admitted during the course of inquiry could also be a quantification of demand. 5. Mr. Parth Divyeshwar, learned advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the same figure as that in the communication dated 21.05.2019. 8. The decision in the case of Chaque Jour Hr. Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) can be distinguished on facts inasmuch as in the said case there was a huge discrepancy in the amount that was admitted by the assessee vis-a-vis the subsequent show-cause notice. The case of Seventh Plane Networks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in fact shall squarely apply to the facts of the case. It will be fruitful to reproduce paras 15 to 19 thereof which read as under: "15. This Court finds that the duty amount mentioned in Form SVLDRS-1 by the petitioner is the same amount that had been admitted by the declarant during the last visit of the Audit Team on 28 th June, 2019 as mentioned in the respondents' Audit Memo dated 2nd July, 2019. 16. Though the petitioner vide its letter dated 3rd July, 2019 had asked for reduction in demand on account of change in the calculation formula, yet it had not denied the demand that had been quantified by the respondents and admitted on 28th June, 2019. 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid admitted facts, this Court is of the view that the duty liability stood admitted in an oral statement by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
