Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N.RAY, JJ.
Bhupeshkumar Jagdishchandra Shah – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1471 of 2022
Decided on : 11-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ for Mandamus and Certiorari - Petitioner sought direction for acceptance of pre-deposit amount under Sabka Vishwas Scheme and to prevent coercive recovery actions - The court found a computational error by the Designated Committee regarding the amount payable under the scheme, failing to consider the pre-deposit made by the petitioner. (Paras 28, 30)
(B) Sabka Vishwas Scheme - Computation of dues - The petitioner was entitled to consider the amount deposited during investigation as part of the tax liability - The court ruled that permitting the petitioner to pay the adjusted amount would not extend the time limit under the scheme. (Paras 26, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a service provider, challenged the order confirming service tax demand and sought relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, claiming improper computation of dues by the Designated Committee. (Paras 5, 28)
Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioner to pay the corrected amount of Rs.30,82,811/- along with interest, recognizing the prior deposit of Rs.30,36,101/- as valid against the outstanding liability. (Paras 30)
Issues: Whether the Designated Committee erred in calculating the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, failing to consider the pre-deposit made by the petitioner. (Paras 28, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Designated Committee's oversight in failing to account for the pre-deposit constituted a glaring mistake, warranting correction without extending the time limit for payment under the scheme. (Paras 29)
Result: Petition succeeds, and the petitioner is directed to pay the corrected amount. (Para 30)
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanket Gupta for learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Though served, no one appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this matter, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Hetvi H. Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers:
(b) that this Hon'ble Court issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 directing respondents and its officer not to initiate any coercive action by way of recovery in respect of OIO No. 26-27/CGST/Ahmd-South/JC/RK/2021 dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Respondent no.4 till the final disposal of the present petition.
(c) for costs of this Petition;
(d) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of sole proprietorship firm namely M/s. The Cap A Pie and is engaged in the business of providing services of washing and dry cleaning of cloth/linen to different divisions of Indian Railways, Hotels and Clubs and prior to introduction of the Goods and Service Tax (GST), the petitioner firm was registered with the Service Tax Department.
6. A show cause notice dated 11.01.2016 was issued by DGCEI to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,22,37,824/- should not be demanded and recovered from the firm.
7. Pursuant to such notice, the adjudicating authority passed the order-in-original dated 25.01.2017 confirming the demand of service tax.
8. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the cum duty benefit as contracts awarded by the Indian Railways prior to 01.07.2012 were inclusive of all taxes.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that the application window for filing a declaration under Sabka Vishwas Scheme was opened on the SVLDRS portal on 01.09.2019 on the website of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
10. The petitioner therefore, on behalf of M/s. The Cap a Pie, filed a declaration on 30.12.2019 under section 125 of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 vide online application in Form SVLDRS-1.
11. The petitioner again filed online application on 14.01.2020 in Form SVLDRS-1, as according to the petitioner, they had filed the application wrongly and also addressed a letter to the department on the same day requesting them to withdraw/reject the earlier application and consider the fresh application and process the same.
12. Respondent no.2 issued notice dated 07.02.2020 for personal hearing along with Form SVLDRS-2 stating that the estimated amount payable by the petitioners shall be Rs.56,32,061/-.
13. The petitioner did not agree with the estimated amount as per From SVLDRS-2 and addressed a letter dated 11.02.2020 clarifying that the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs.30,
The Designated Committee erred in failing to account for the pre-deposit made by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, requiring correction without extending the payment deadline.
The court established that pre-deposits should be deducted only after calculating the relief under the SVLDRS, ensuring accurate determination of tax dues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for authorities to properly verify and consider the claims of assessees based on material while determining the estimated amount of paymen....
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....
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 obje....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a declarant under the SVLDR Scheme can file a declaration under the 'arrears' category if the assessment order has already determined the tax ....
Eligibility for the benefits of the SVLDRS Scheme is confirmed when service tax liability is quantified and admitted prior to the cut-off date, regardless of ongoing investigations.
Failure to rectify an incomplete form within the stipulated period and to deposit the balance amount may lead to dismissal of the petition.
A person under investigation is ineligible for voluntary disclosure under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as per Section 125(1)(f).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
