The court ruled that misstatements in declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme negate eligibility for relief, emphasizing the necessity of accurate claims regarding CENVAT credit utilization.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order (SVLDRS FORM 3) dated 27 January 2022 on the ground that it requires the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/-. The petitioner contends that under the provision Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (“SVLDRS”) after making proper calculations and accounting for the amounts already paid by the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under the scheme, without payment of this additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/-. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. Raichandani referred us to the Scheme contained in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and stressed on Section 24(2) which provides that the relief available to a declarant under the Scheme should be calculated under Sub-Section 1 and the same shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of the appellate proceedings under the indirect text enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. Provided that if the amount of pre-deposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant, as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund.

5. Mr. Raichandani submitted in the present case, admittedly, the enquiry or investigation commenced on 11 December 2018. He referred us to the impugned order in which it is stated that the enquiry/investigations are still ongoing. He then submitted that the petitioner paid Rs.3,27,81,964/- through the CENVAT account vide returns filed on 31 December 2019. He, therefore, submitted that since this amount was paid after the commencement of the enquiry/investigation, which enquiry/investigation is still ongoing, this amount was entitled to be accounted for or deducted in terms of Section 124(2) for determining the total amount payable (if at all) under the Scheme by the petitioner. On this ground, he submitted that the impugned order should be appropriately modified and the demand for payment of the additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/- should be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Raichandani referred to specific GST Act and Rules provisions to support his contentions. He also referred to a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and the answers to the same to support his contentions. He submitted that this was a clear case of miscalculations and misconstruction, and therefore, this Court should interfere with the impugned order and quash the excess demand.

7. Mr. Raichandani submitted that the object of such Schemes was to give a quietus and bring about a settlement. He, therefore, submitted that the provisions of such a Scheme should not be construed pedantically but liberally. He submitted that the matter was remanded on the first occasion only to determine whether the declaration of the petitioner vis-a-vis claim of CENVAT credit of Rs.3,28,49,069/- as a pre- deposit, in addition to the cash deposit of Rs.1,11,25,000/- was acceptable. He submitted that based on such limited remand, the respondents were not justified in making the impugned order, holding that this amount of Rs.3,27,81,964/- was not deductible under Section 124(2) of the Scheme.

8. For all the above reasons, Mr. Raichandani submitted that the impugned order and the additional demand contained therein be set aside and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this petition be granted in their entirety.

9. Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner made a serious misstatement in the Declaration Form (SVLDRS 1). The claim therein was false, which was repeated in this petition. He, therefore, submitted that the equitable jurisdiction of this Court sh