The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission of tax dues by the petitioner and eligibility to avail benefits under the SVLDRS were in line with the legal provisions and objectives of the Scheme, and discrepancies in the figures admitted prior to the cut-off date would not be material to determine eligibility under the SVLDRS.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Ochani, learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to restore and reconsider SVLDRS declaration filed by the petitioner on merits and to issue necessary discharge certificate and for other reliefs.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13th March 2019, the office of Directorate General of GST Intelligence issued summons to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 and Sections 70 and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 with a direction to remain present in-person and to tender evidence/produce documents. On 25th March 2019, the statement of one of the Directors was recorded when he admitted service tax liability of Rs. 72.37 lakhs for the period October 2015 to June 2017. The Central Government thereafter introduced Subka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme in Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 (for short “the said SVLDR Scheme) for settling old cases of service tax and central excise.

4. On 1st November 2019, the petitioner filed the SVLDRS-1 declaration declaring tax dues of 72.37 lakhs as admitted by their Director under the “inquiry/investigation/audit” category. On 11th November 2019, the petitioner informed the office of the DGGI that they had already opted for SVLDRS based on the tax liability admitted by their Director before the DGGI Officer. On 23rd December 2019, the Designated Committee issued a Form SVLDRS-2 based on SVLDRS-1 declaration made by the petitioner. On 30th December 2019, the Designated Committee afforded personal hearing to the petitioner when they once again agreed to the tax liability of Rs. 72.37 lakhs as admitted by their Director before the DGGI and furthermore requested to issue SVLDRS-3 which would then enable them to make payment of the tax dues. On 10th February 2020, the petitioner admitted their tax dues of Rs. 72.37 lakhs in Form SVLDRS-2A also.

5. On 12th February 2020, the Designated Committee passed the impugned order rejecting the SVLDRS-1 declaration submitted by the petitioner holding that they obtained some verification report dated 17th December 2019 from the DGGI. The tax dues were not quantified finally on or before 30th June 2019. On 2nd March 2020, the petitioner reiterated that the tax dues were admitted by them before the DGGI and thus requested the Principal Commissioner to seek verification report from DGGI to confirm the same. On 30th December 2020, the DGGI issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to recover the specified amount of service. The petitioner requested for a copy of the report dated 17th December 2019 of DGGI on 22nd January 2021.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the said report before DGGI has not been served upon the petitioner till date. Since the petitioner apprehended the coercive action from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition for various reliefs.

7. Mr. Chitnis, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to SVLDRS-1 declaration submitted by the petitioner and also to Form SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A. He invited our attention to the statement of Shri M.B. Shaikh, one of the Directors of the petitioner recorded on 25th March 2019 before the Senior Intelligence Officer and more particularly to the reply to the question no. 10 accepting tax liability of Rs. 72.37 lakhs for the period October 2015 to June 2017 and GST liability for the period July 2018 to February 2019 i.e. Rs. 80.48 lakhs. The petitioner undertook to pay the service tax as well as the GST liability at the earliest along with interest at applicable rates. The said statement was made under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and Sections 70 & 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. He made a statement that the said statem