TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Consequently, the proposals in the Show Cause Notice No.84/2019-ST dated 08.11.2019 was unwarranted - Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar in both W.Ps. For the Respondent : Mr.Rajinish Pathiyil Senior Standing Counsel, Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior Panel Counsel COMMON ORDER By this common order both the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. In W.P.No.12718 of 2020 , the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Communication dated 08.11.2019 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as SVLDRS, 2019). 3. In W.P.No.4434 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Order in Original No.06/2022(c) dated 31.01.2022 passed by the first respondent therein. 4. In W.P.No.4434 of 2022 , the first respondent, the Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise has confirmed the demand against the petitioner proposed in Show Cause Notice No.84/2019- ST dated 08.11.2019 vide Impugned Order in Original No.06/2022 (C) dated 31.01.2022. 5. The petitioner had filed an application under SVLDRS, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8961452 0 8961452 Total 556120816 78246005 41675677 19635087 61310764 9. The amount that was declared by the petitioner in the returns filed in ST-3 for the above period more or less matches with the amount that was proposed to be demanded from the petitioner vide Show Cause Notice No.84/19-ST dated 08.11.2019. 10. In the Show Cause Notice No.84/19-ST dated 08.11.2019, the cumulative amount that was demanded from the petitioner is Rs. 7,83,78,642/- which amount was paid and sought to be appropriated as it was was paid by the petitioner partly through a debit from its Cenvat Credit Account and partly through cash as detailed on the above table. 11. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent in W.P.No.12718 of 2020 ought not to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 on 25.12.2019 or confirmed the demand vide Impugned Order in Original No.06/2022 (C) dated 31.01.2022 as there was a proper quantification of tax prior to 30.06.2019. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligibility with respect to a category in such cases shall be as it was on the relevant date i.e., 30.06.2019. 14. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the amount that was quantified by the petitioner in the returns filed by the petitioner during the period mentioned above more or less matches with the amount that was proposed in Show Cause Notice No.84/19-ST dated 08.11.2019 and that there is only a minor variation between the amount proposed in the said Show Cause Notice and the amount declared by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 on 25.12.2019. 15. It is submitted that the difference is marginal and is confined to only Rs. 2,63,202/- (Rs.7,83,78,642 Rs. 7,81,15,440) and therefore submits that in view of the second mentioned Circular dated 12.12.2019 read with first mentioned Circular dated 27.08.2019, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been accepted by the respondent in W.P.No.12718 of 2020 viz., the Designated Authority. 16. Consequently, it is submitted that the Impugned Order in Original No.06/2022 (C) dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner in W.P.No.4434 of 2022 which confirms the proposals contained in Show Cause Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re as an errant taxpayer whose tax liability has not been determined, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019 for the period between March 2016 to March 2017 163. In our view, there was neither a proper quantification by the petitioner nor any quantification during audit by the Department. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.11785 of 2020 is not entitled to the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019 for the period between March 2016 to March 2017. 164. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Delhi and Bombay High Courts and the FAQs issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying what is meant by quantification, but the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 21. It is submitted that in view of the above decision of the Court, the challenge to the regulation of application filed by the petitioner under the SVLDRS, 2019 was not maintainable and therefore the Impugned Order passed by the respondent has to be sustained. 22. It is submitted that at best the petitioner can be given liberty to file an appeal before the CESTAT. 23. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate expression, means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. 29. If a declarant against whom an enquiry or investigation under any indirect tax enactment was pending and where the amount was quantified on or before 30.06.2019, such a declarant would be entitled to relief under Section 124(1)(d)(ii). Section 124(1)(d)(ii) reads as under:- 124(1)(d)(ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues 30. While calculating the amount under Section 124(1) of the Scheme any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appeal proceeding of Indirect Tax enactment, investigation or audit is to be deducted while issuing a statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. The aforesaid statement is to be issued in Form SVLDRS-3 as per Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 31. In this case, the Board has itself clarified the position vide 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019. Relevant portion has been already extracted above at the beginning of this order. 32. It has been clarified that for all the cases pending in adjudication or appeal (at any forum), the relief is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
