TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent has filed a copy of Order in Original No.24/2023-GST(ADC) dated 31.03.2023. wherein the demand proposed in SCN No.4/2020(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 has confined the demand. The petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme, although the Designated Committee of the 1st respondent has concluded that the Committee examined the case and found that an amount of Rs. 8,36,913/- was paid towards interest and the SVLDRS scheme does not allow the set off of interest against duty liability. Accordingly the Committee decided to accept only the pre deposit of duty of Rs. 20,76,274/- towards pre deposit. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Win Power Engineering (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director T.K.Kumar Vs. The Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 [ 2022 (12) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has held The question of issuing statement by the Committee under Section 127 read with Rule 6 of the SVLDRS Rules, 2019 would arise only where the application filed itself falls within the four corners of Section 124(1)(d) as extracted above. Only where there was quantification of tax or duty in arrears, the scheme was app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely (a) (b) (c) (d) e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th date of June, 2019; 5. After, the petitioner had transitioned the Credit, the Audit Wing, namely the office of the 3rd respondent had raised queries and by a communication dated 17.12.2018 bearing C.No.III/10/41/2018-C7 G2 Misc., informed the petitioner that the petitioner had wrongly transitioned an amount of Rs. 17,21,05,852/- out of Rs. 160,75,20,741/- as Input Tax Credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was called upon to update the details in the worksheet, which was sent to the petitioner on 04.12.2018 and submit the same to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was also called upon to furnish the details of credit already reversed in the prescribed format. The relevant portion of the aforesaid communication reads as under:- Gentlemen, Sub: Tran-1 Credit Verification M/s.Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., - Reg. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the same date, being the last date for settling the dispute under the aforesaid Scheme. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Usha Martin Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner of CGST Ex., Jamshedpur , 2023 (68) GSTL 338 (Jhar.). 11. The respondents have defended the impugned order stating that the petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the amount declared by the petitioner pertains to the CENVAT wrongly availed which is covered under the scope of the 'indirect tax enactment' as per Section 122(a) of the Scheme and that the same is clarified in CBIC's Circular dated 07.08.2019 that the said demand has also been quantified on 17.12.2018, which is before 30.06.2019 cut-off date provided under the Scheme and as per Circular 29.10.2019, at para 2(i) therein, even audit proceedings that are concluded before 30.06.2019 is covered under the SVLDR Scheme. 12. During the interregnum, the petitioner was also issued with Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2020 after the petitioner opted to settle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 demanding a sum of Rs. 31,23,18,218 as detailed below:- S.No. Description of the issue in the Impugned SCN Tax Demand 1 Cenvat Credit availed without any document and availment of Cenvat Credit twice basis the same document 3,60,59,802 2 Cenvat Credit availed beyond the specified time limit 17,27,09,497 3 Availment of inelitible Cenvat Credit 1,07,67,478 4 Availment of credit over and above the eligible credit 42,91,303 5 Availment of credit without documents 4,61,92,752 6 Non-reversal of credit taken on intellectual Property Right (IPR) and market related study services 2,40,75,313 7 Transition of the balance of the EC and SHEC carried forward in the ER-1 returns. 1,82,22,113 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; 135. For clear understanding of cases where there is quantification before 30.06.2019 in the case of a declarant where an enquiry or investigation was pending, the following table given below:- ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION OR AUDIT 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely: (e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; Definition Tax Due Relief 121. In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, (g) audit means any scrutiny, verification and checks carried out under the indirect tax enactment, other than an enquiry or investigation, and will commence when a written intimation from the central excise officer regarding conducting of audit is received; (m) enquiry or investigation , under any of the indirect tax enactment, shall include the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit is over, against an assessee, there is no question of availability SVLDRs 2019. 145. In other words, during the course of enquiry investigation or audit, a person can file a Declaration under SVLDR, 2019 provided there is a proper quantification of tax liability on or before 30.06.2019. However, mere filing of a Declaration ipso facto will not mean that the enquiry, investigation or audit has to be stopped. If the amount quantified is correct, such quantification can be accepted. However, if enquiry, investigation or audit is complete, where there is no quantification, there is no scope for filing Declaration. 146. Thus, Voluntary Disclosure is not permissible in view of exclusion in Section 125(f) after a person has been subjected to an Enquiry , Investigation , or Audit or where having filed returns under the indirect tax enactment, amount payable in it has not been paid. If returns were filed after 30.06.2019 also benefit is not available. Thus, the respective petitioners are prima facie not entitled to any relief if there was quantification after 30.06.2019. 147. Only if the tax due are linked to an Enquiry or Investigation or Audit where it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
