ORDER

Nagu, J:- 1. The short question of law herein is as to whether in the face of provision contained in section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 and rule 6(6) of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for brevity “SVLDRS Scheme, 2019”), the Designated Committee under the said Scheme after issuing statement declaring the reduced amount of tax payable of Rs.8,97,037.20, and the petitioner having paid this amount on 15.2.2020, can the said Committee exercise power u/S 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 after expiry of 30 days of issuance of statement to modify the same suo moto on discovering arithmetical/clerical mistake.

2. The entire gamut of the facts involved are not being discussed to avoid prolixity and only relevant figures and facts are being detailed below :

(i) Vide Annexure P/5 dated 16.1.2020, a statement u/S 127 was issued under the said Scheme treating the case of petitioner to be under the category of “litigation” based upon the total tax dues, for the period from 1.4.2016 to 1.6.2017 as Rs.29,90,124.00 and the reduced amount payable under the Scheme to be Rs.8,97,037.20. On 15.2.2020, petitioner paid the said reduced amount of Rs. Rs.8,97,037.20.

(ii) The Designated Committee noticed that the amount of CENVAT Credit of Rs.23,52,894/- as proposed to be disallowed and reversed in show cause notice dated 18.3.2019 had not been included while computing “tax dues”. Hence, the Revenue to safeguard its interest decided to issue a rectified SVLDRS Form-3 on 28.2.2020 estimating the modified tax dues as Rs.53,43,018/- and the reduced amount of tax payable under the Scheme to be Rs.26,71,509/-.

(iii) Since the amount payable under the Scheme i.e. Rs.26,71,509/- was not paid by petitioner, Form SVLDRS-IV was not issued by the Revenue.

(iv) Consequently, the recovery proceedings impugned herein have been initiated by the Revenue.

3. The question in the aforesaid factual background is as to whether the Designated Committee once have issued statement on 16.1.2020 vide Annexure P/5 u/S 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 review the same after expiry of 30 days i.e. on 28.2.2020.

4. It is settled principle of law in jurisprudence that in cases pertaining to provisions concerning concession/relaxation/discount/rebate, doubt if any has to be resolved in favour of the Revenue. The reason is not far to see. The principal object of a Taxing Statute is to collect revenue for the State. If the said Statute extends a benefit/ relaxation/ concession/ discount/rebate then to ensure that such concessional provisions do not offend the said principal object, the Courts have laid down that such concessional provisions under Taxing Statute are to be read in favour of Revenue in case of doubt. This Court is bolstered in it’s view by the decision of apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Wood Papers Ltd. and another [(1990) 4 SCC 256] relevant extract of which are produced below :

"4. Entitlement of exemption depends on construction of the expression “any factory commencing production” used in the Table extracted above. Literally exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. Fiscally it may assume varying shapes, specially, in a growing economy. For instance tax holiday to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods or persons for limited period or with the specific objective etc. That is why its construction, unlike charging provision, has to be tested on different touchstone. In fact an exemption provision is like an exception and on normal principle of construction or interpretation of statutes it is construed strictly either because of legislative intention or on economic justification of inequitable burden or progressive approach of fiscal provisions intended to augment State revenue. But once exception or exemption becomes applicable no rule or principle requires it to be construed strictly. Truly speaking liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision are to be invoked at different stages of in