Point of law : There being no admission of the petitioner as to its liability of service tax dues prior to the cut-off date of June 30, 2019, declaration of the petitioner was rightly rejected

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. These petitions raise common issues and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. The parties also consent to this course of action. In Writ Petition No.970 of 2020, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for short) under ARN No.LD2812190001777 dated December 28, 2019 under the category of ‘Investigation/Enquiry/Audit’, sub category ‘Audit’ declaring tax dues of Rs.75,64,008/-. In Writ Petition No.186 of 2021, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Scheme under ARN No.LD2812190001665 dated December 28, 2019 under the category of ‘Investigation/Enquiry/Audit’, sub category ‘Audit’ declaring tax dues of Rs.2,41,59,708/-. The declarations are rejected by the letters dated May 12, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned letters’ for short). For convenience we have referred to the facts in Writ Petition No.970 of 2020.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and legality of the impugned letters, rejecting the application made by the petitioner under the Scheme for settlement of the amount of excise duty payable.

3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 duly allotted the Central Excise Registration as well as the GST registration. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and supply of steel. The office of respondent No.4 (Commissioner, CGST and CX) conducted EA-2000 audit on the records of the petitioner for the period April 2015 to June 2017. During the course of scrutiny on records of the petitioner, Circle X, Group I, GST Audit, Raigad, sought following details from the petitioner vide e-mail dated April 4, 2018 :

i) Invoices in respect of which CENVAT Credit was availed and subsequently reversed on account of nonpayment of consideration to the vendors within 90 days from the date of the invoices, as per Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Credit Rules’).

ii) Invoices in respect of CENVAT Credit re-availed once the payment was made by the Petitioner to the vendors, as per the provisions under Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules.”

4. The petitioner on the same day i.e. April 4, 2018 provided the necessary details to the office of respondent No.4 through an e-mail correspondence. Based on the verification of the details submitted by the petitioner, the office of respondent No.4 vide letter dated September 4, 2018 observed that the credit availed by the petitioner in respect of many invoices was inadmissible. The office of respondent No.4 observed that the petitioner had re-availed CENVAT Credit under Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules in respect of certain invoices for which the credit was not reversed in the first place. The petitioner pleads that the office of respondent No.4 quantified the amount of such ineligible CENVAT Credit availed by the petitioner for the period April 2015 to June 2017 as Rs.75,64,008/-(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said amount’ for short) and communicated the said quantification to the petitioner through e-mail on October 31, 2018. The petitioner then states that the office of respondent No.4 issued audit report dated August 29, 2019 whereby various observations with respect to the audit of the records of the petitioner are made. It is the petitioner’s case that the letter dated August 29, 2019 specifically included the observation with respect to wrongful re-availment of credit which was not reversed earlier and adopted the same quantification of the said amount which was communicated by the office of respondent No.4 to the petitioner vide e-mail dated October 31, 2018. The petitioner then made an application in Form SVDRS-I of the Scheme before the respondent No.3 in relation to the said amount quantified as duty payable by the petitioner during the course of audit and communicated to the petitioner vide e-mail dated October 31, 20