SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
M/s SIE Brains Technology Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.B. Harish
For the Respondents: K. Hema Kumar, Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Shishira Amarnath

Eligibility for the benefits of the SVLDRS Scheme is confirmed when service tax liability is quantified and admitted prior to the cut-off date, regardless of ongoing investigations.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - The court held that the petitioner could avail the benefits of the Scheme as the service tax liability had been admitted and quantified prior to the cut-off date of 30.06.2019. The rejection of the petitioner's SVLDRS Form-1 was found arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Scheme and applicable Circulars. (Paras 8, 11, and 18)

(B) Limitation - timeliness of filing SVLDRS Form-1 - Pendency of enquiries or investigations does not preclude a taxpayer from claiming benefits under the SVLDRS if liability was quantified prior to the cut-off date. The court clarified that the admission made during investigation satisfies the quantification requirement for availing benefits under the SVLDRS. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought relief from the rejection of its SVLDRS Form-1, arguing that it had quantified its service tax liability well before the cut-off date. The petitioner admitted liability of Rs.50,50,277/- on 21.06.2019, with the application for SVLDRS filed on 29.12.2019, which was rejected.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the application unlawful, reiterating that the petitioner was eligible for the benefits under the SVLDRS Scheme based on prior admission and quantification, and that mere investigation status did not affect eligibility.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under the SVLDRS Scheme despite ongoing investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an admission of liability prior to the cut-off date rendered the petitioner eligible for benefits under the SVLDRS, irrespective of ongoing investigations, and stressed that procedural errors in the rejection of the declaration warranted judicial rectification.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's seek for judicial review under article 226 (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner admitted service tax liability before the cut-off date (Para 3 , 4)
3. prior cases establish precedent for admissions before cut-off (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's conclusive order quashing previous rejections (Para 7)

ORDER :

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the impugned rejection of declaration in SVLDRS-1 by Respondent No.3 vide ARN Nos. LD2912190001418, LD2912190001449, LD2912190001459, LD291290001463, LD2912190001478, LD2912190001531, LD2912190001539, LD2912190001557 dated: 29.12.2019 (Vide Annexure-C) by the Respondent No.3 in the interest of Justice and equity.

ii) Direct the Respondent No.3 i.e. learned designated committee to hear and decide the applications in SVLDRS-1 in ARN Nos: LD2912190001418, LD2912190001449, LD2912190001459, LD2912190001463, LD291290001478, LD2912190001531, LD2912190001539, LD2912190001557 dated: 29.12.2019 (Vide Annexure-C) at the earliest in the interest of Justice and equity.

iii) Such other and further order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the 1st respondent-State as well as learned counsel for other respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that during the course of proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, the statement of the Managing Director of the petitioner was recorded on 11.01.2019 in which he has specifically admitted that they had not discharged the service tax liability from the year 2013-14 up to June 2017 in a sum of Rs.1.5 crores. Thereafter, on 16.10.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who was directed to appear for personal hearing on 23.12.2019. In the meanwhile, SVLDRS scheme having come into force, petitioner filed application in SVLDRS Form-1 on 29.12.2019 and thereafter, submitted a reply dated 10.01.2020 claiming waiver of penalty and interest and reducing amount in terms of the scheme on the ground that the petitioner had admitted and quantified its liability to pay service tax prior to the cut off date to 30.06.2019 in its statement dated 11.01.2019 and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said scheme.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite having quantified its liability to pay service tax on 11.01.2019, much prior to cut off date 30.06.2019 in terms of the SVLDRS Scheme, the respondents have proceeded to reject SVLDRS Form-1 submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 12.02.2020 on the ground that the return was filed belatedly during investigation and the liability declared are covered by the show cause notice issued after 30.06.2019, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Under identical circumstances in relation to admissions and quantification of service tax liability made by a person prior to the cut off date, this Court in the case of Nikitha Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India , (2023) 3 Centax 99 (Kar.) held as under:-

1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

"A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or a direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order bearing C.No.IV/16/833/2019 Adjn BNW, dt.06.05.2020 passed by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-N and hold that the Petitioner is eligible for the benefit under the Scheme.

B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or a direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order-in-Original No.30/2020- Adj., dt. 5.03.2021 passed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top