Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 2377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.
Pierian Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Designated Committee, Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8254 of 2020 (T-RES)
Decided On : 21-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Raghuraman V., Advocate
For the Respondents:Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate
Headnote:
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 – Sections 123(a)(i) and 124(2) - Excise and Service Tax - Payment of – Seeking quash of Statements issued by Designated Committee-SVLDR Scheme - Whether there be a dispute on Service Tax deposited by petitioner, and if there cannot be any dispute in this regard, would petitioner upon reading provisions of Sections 123(a)(i) and 124(2) of SVLDR Scheme, be entitled to Tax Relief thereunder which would absolve petitioner from paying further amounts - Held, provisions of Section 124 of SVLDRS Scheme, petitioner would be entitled Tax Relief subject deduction of amount. However, Tax relief is refused referring to order-in-original which does not even refer to deposit made by petitioner after Show Cause Notice. The assertion on behalf of first respondent that petitioner has itself declared that amount in appeal memorandum of appeal before CESTAT cannot also be accepted in view of explanation offered by learned counsel for petitioner in Rejoinder and duty cast upon first respondent Rule 6 of SVLDRS Rules to verify records. It is also undisputed that after SVLDRS-2 is issued, repeated representations have been made to bring out aforesaid circumstances - Impugned Forms issued by Designated Committee, SVLDRS are quashed and first respondent is called upon to issue appropriate Discharge Certificate considering undisputed deposit of duty in a amount and disputed claim of amount - Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Statements issued by the Designated Committee-SVLDR Scheme, the first respondent, in Form No. SVLDRS-2 [Annexure-A] and in Form No. SVLDRS-3 [Annexure-B] with a direction to the respondents to issue Discharge Certificate in terms of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ('SVLDR Scheme').
2. Sri. Raghuraman V, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is initially issued with Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 for a certain tax demand indicating inter alia that the petitioner had paid service tax in a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. After a subsequent audit, the Report dated 08.04.2015 is filed wherein, it is recorded that the petitioner has paid a total service tax for the relevant period in a sum of Rs. 2,52,46,749/-. After the aforesaid report dated 08.04.2015, the Order-in-original dated 27.09.2018 is issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,77,06,985/-. In this original Order dated 27.09.2018, there is no discussion about the tax paid as there was no dispute about the same. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this Order-in-original dated 27.09.2018, has filed appropriate appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT'). However for the purposes of SVLDR Scheme these circumstances show that there is quantification of the liability in a sum of Rs. 1,177,06,985/- and payment of tax in a sum of Rs. 2,52,46,749/- (including a sum of Rs. 92,33,857/- after the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014) as on 30.06.2019, the relevant date under the Scheme.
3. Sri. Raghuraman. V further submits that during the pendency of the above appeal before the CESTAT, the petitioner, being entitled to file declaration under the SVLDR Scheme, has filed the declaration in the prescribed Format as per Annexure - Q. The petitioner is issued with SVLDRS-2 indicating that the pre-deposit/other deposit of duty by the petitioner would only be in a sum of Rs. 27,66,646/- and therefore, the petitioner would have to pay a sum of Rs. 60,86,846/- after the 'Tax Relief''. The statement in SVLDRS -2, as well as SVLDRS-3, does not consider the actual deposit/payment of duty as service tax which is undisputed and is as recorded in the Audit Report 08.04.2015. The petitioner in the declaration as per Annexure-Q has indicated payment/deposit of duty in a sum of Rs. 92,33,857/- as against now indicated Rs. 27,66,646/- because that would be the difference between the amounts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 and the Audit Report dated 08.04.2015. There is no justification for issuance of the impugned Form No. SVLDRS-2 and Form No. SVLDRS-3 as there could be no dispute about the deposit of duty.
4. Sri. Raghuraman. V taking this Court through the Scheme and the obligation on the part of the authorities under Rule 6 of the SVLDR Scheme submits that the Designated Committee, the first respondent, in the case of a declaration as filed by the petitioner, will have to verify the records before issuing confirmation in SVLDRS-3. If only the Designated Committee had verified their records, the impugned SVLDRS Forms could not have been issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 60,86,846/- and thus, restricting the Tax Relief that the petitioner would justifiably be entitled to in terms of the Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief/s as prayed for.
5. Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the petitioner in its appeal memorandum before the CESTAT has unequivocally stated in Column No. 14 of the appeal memorandum that the tax deposited is only in a sum of Rs. 27,66,646/- and this is considered by the Designated Committee in issuing the impugned SVLDRS Forms. The petitioner having admitted that only a sum of Rs. 27,66,646/- is paid as Tax, which would qualify as Pre-Deposit/other Duty Paid under the SVLD
