The court emphasized the necessity of verifying predeposits and recoveries as essential for determining amounts payable under the SVLDRS, asserting that the failure to consider such evidence warrants re-evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We issue Rule in this Petition and make the Rule returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner seeks to quash the statement issued by the Respondents to form SVLDRS-3 dated 26 December 2019 (Exh.A) primarily on the ground that the amounts already recovered from the Petitioner or the amounts predeposited by the Petitioner were not adjusted in determining the amount which the Petitioner has been called upon to pay under SVLDRS-3.

4. On 13 June 2013, the Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice cum demand notice proposing to demand service tax of Rs.2,25,31,804/- for the period from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. The Petitioner responded on 9 December 2013 in which he pointed out that the major portion of the demand had already been remitted before the issuance of the show- cause notice. After this, the Petitioner was issued another show-cause notice-cum-demand notice dated 28 March 2014, this time demanding service tax of Rs.17,04,400/- along with interest and penalty for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.

5. On 27 March 2018, the 3^rd Respondent made the Order-in-Original confirming the demands proposed in show- cause notices dated 13 June 2013 and 28 March 2014. The Petitioner contends that its submissions regarding the amounts already paid or predeposited amounts were not considered.

6. The Petitioner appealed the Order-in-Original dated 27 March 2018 on 4 July 2018. While the Appeal was pending, ‘The Sabka Vishwas’ (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 i.e. Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 entered forced vide notification dated 21 August 2019.

7. The Petitioner on 27 November 2019 applied under SVLDRS by pointing out that its Appeal was pending before the CESTAT.

8. On 9 December 2019, the Petitioner wrote to the Respondents about the details of service tax payment of Rs.1,89,28,966/- along with an affidavit of payment of service tax challans.

9. On 11 December 2019, the Petitioner was called upon to attend personal hearing on 16 December 2019. This intimation remarks that the amount of predeposits claimed by the Petitioner is not co-relatable with the records available in the office and therefore, the Petitioner, has to produce original copies of the challans at the time of hearing scheduled on 16 December 2019.

10. The Petitioner has placed on record communication of 16 December 2019 along with details of challans based upon which the Petitioner claims to have paid the amounts towards service tax for the relevant period.

11. On 26 December 2019, the Respondents issued impugned SVLDRS-3 (Exhibit-A) calling upon the Petitioner to pay 50% of the amount determined as due from the Petitioner i.e. Rs.1,12,65,902/-.

12. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner took us to the SVLDRS-3 and stressed upon Section 124(2) of the Finance Act in which this scheme is contained. Section 124(2) provides that the relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as predeposit at any stage of the appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as a deposit during inquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted while issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. The proviso clarifies that if the amount of predep