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

15.02.2020, 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.

- 3 -

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 16.01.2020, 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 01.04.2016 to 01.06.2017 as Rs.29,90,124.00 and

the reduced amount payable under the Scheme to be Rs.8,97,037.20.

On 15.02.2020, 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 18.03.2019 had not been

included while computing “tax dues”. Hence, the Revenue to

safeguard its interest decided to issue a rectified SVLDRS Form-3

on 28.02.2020 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.

- 4 -

3.

The question in the aforesaid factual background is as to whether the

Designated Committee once have issued statement on 16.01.2020 vide

Annexure P/5 u/S 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 review the same after

expiry of 30 days i.e. on 28.02.2020.

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 vs. 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.

- 5 -

Truly speaking liberal and strict construction of an exemption

provision a