Eligibility for benefits under the Sabka Vikas Scheme requires official communication of tax dues quantification by the department; unilateral admissions do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the proposal of the petitioner submitted under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (herein after referred to as SVLDRS) vide application being ARN No. LD3112190022236 along with Form SVLDRS-1 dated 31.12.2019 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till such time the above application is considered and decided by the respondent no. 3.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the abovementioned application under the SVLDRS, however, no response thereto has been received from the respondent no. 3. The petitioner claims that the respondent no. 3 has neither rejected nor accepted the proposal of the petitioner company, however, in February 2020, petitioner was orally informed that the same has been rejected as the Deputy Commissioner till date has not calculated any duty/tax liability. The petitioner states that copy of such order, however, has not been supplied to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no reason for rejection has till date been communicated to the petitioner, the above orally stated reason is also incorrect inasmuch as by a notice dated 20.11.2018 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, CGST, Delhi (South) to M/s Carex Cargo Express Private Limited, a demand of Rs.87,88,387/- excluding interest towards service tax liability and GST liability to the tune of Rs.1,34,25,218/- excluding interest has been raised and demanded against the petitioner. She submits that therefore, there was a `quantified' demand of tax against the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of SVLDRS.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. Form SVLDRS-1 placed by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 (page 37 of the paper book) itself contains the ground of its rejection as, `ground of ineligibility' with remarks, `amount neither quantified nor communicated'. It is, therefore, apparent that the application form annexed by the petitioner itself shows its rejection as also the reason for the rejection. The petitioner, therefore, cannot plead ignorance of the same.

5. As far as the reliance of petitioner on the letter dated 20.11.2018 is concerned, the same is also ill-founded. The relevant extract from the letter, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is as under:

"2. During the course of investigation, Shri Gaurav Kwatra, Director of M/s No 1 Worldwide Express Private Limited, in his statement dated 31.10.2018 under Section 14 of CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax under Section 83 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Superintendent (AE) of Central Exciise & Service Tax, CGST, Delhi South has admitted pending service tax liability to the tune of Rs.87,88,387/- excluding interest and GST liability to the tune of Rs.1,34,25,218/- excluding Interest......"

(Emphasis supplied)

6. A reading of the above would clearly show that this is not a quantification of demand by the respondents but a unilateral admission of liability by the petitioner itself.

7. In Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme and Another, (Judgment dated 22.02.2021 in W.P. (C) 2408/2021), this Court on a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions