2020 (7) TMI 180 - HC - Service Tax

Court Overturns Rejection of Declarations Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, Orders Reevaluation Within Two Months.

M/s Acme Trade And Aencies Versus The Union Of India And 3 Ors.

The HC set aside the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' declarations under the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' and ... Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of first declaration made by the petitioner on the ground of Incorrect Declaration - rejection of second declaration/application filed by the petitioner on the ground that since earlier application on the same issue has been disposed of, this cannot be accepted - HELD THAT:- On similar issues a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already disposed of writ petition being WP (C) No. 2149/2020 passed in Assam Cricket Association Vs. The Union of India & 4 Ors. Mr. Keyal [2020 (6) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] submits that by that order this Hon’ble Court has remanded the matter back to the authorities concerned for consideration afresh. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Demand of service tax, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.2. Application under the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' by the petitioners.3. Rejection of the first and second declarations filed by the petitioners by the respondent authorities.4. Comparison with a similar case disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench.5. Remanding the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration.6. Directions to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the declaration/application within a specified time frame.Analysis:1. The writ petitioners contested the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal Court, and during its pendency, the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' was notified, offering relief on tax dues, interest, and penalty. The petitioners applied under this scheme but noticed an oversight in the penalty amount mentioned in the application, leading them to file a rectified application. However, both applications were rejected by the respondent authorities citing reasons of 'Incorrect Declaration' and the earlier application's disposal on the same issue.2. The respondents referred to a similar case disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court, where the matter was remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration. Consequently, the respondents suggested that the present writ petition could be disposed of similarly by remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioners' counsel agreed with this proposition, aligning with the decision in the previous case.3. The High Court, after considering the arguments and circumstances, set aside the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' declarations and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a reevaluation of the application filed by the petitioners. The Court directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders on the declaration/application in accordance with the scheme and rules framed thereunder. If a fresh declaration is required, the authorities were instructed to permit the petitioners to file such a declaration.4. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive to the respondents to process the petitioners' declaration/application within two months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the Court's order. The judgment concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs, effectively concluding the legal proceedings on this matter.