Court Upholds Petitioner's Claim Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and accepting the petitioner's computation. The Sabka Vishwas Scheme aims to close legacy tax disputes fairly, and the duplicated demands in this case justified the petitioner's claim without further payment. The appeal was deemed maintainable, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Duplication of Service Tax Demand.
2. Compliance with Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019.
3. Maintainability of the Appeal.
4. Principles of Natural Justice.
5. Computation of Tax Dues and Relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Duplication of Service Tax Demand:
The petitioner, engaged in the construction and sale of residential apartments, faced two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) for differential service tax for overlapping periods and projects. The first SCN dated 12.10.2011 (SCN 1) demanded Rs. 19,15,491/- for the period December 2008 to March 2009. The second SCN dated 09.02.2012 (SCN 2) demanded Rs. 29,16,716/- for the same period and additional months, with a breakdown of Rs. 19,18,375/- for the period December 2008 to March 2009 and Rs. 9,98,350/- for April 2009 to March 2010. The petitioner argued that SCN 2 duplicated the demand of SCN 1.

Upon verification, the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II) found that the demands for the period December 2008 to March 2009 were indeed duplicated, with minor variations in figures. The demand for April 2009 to January 2010 was also substantially the same under both SCNs, confirming the petitioner's claim of duplication.

2. Compliance with Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019:
The petitioner availed of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, which required remittance of 30% of the disputed demand, adjusted by pre-deposits. The Designated Committee rejected the petitioner's declaration, directing payment of Rs. 8,75,014/-. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the duplicated demand should be considered as pre-deposit, negating further payment.

The Court found that the duplicated demand of Rs. 19,18,375/- was already appropriated in an earlier order, making the petitioner's appeal maintainable and rendering the Designated Committee's rejection premature and incorrect.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal against the Order-in-Original (OinO 2) was initially returned due to non-payment of statutory pre-deposit. However, the Court directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation regarding duplication of demands. The Commissioner's findings confirmed the duplication, validating the appeal's maintainability.

4. Principles of Natural Justice:
The revenue argued that the Commissioner's order violated natural justice by not hearing them. The Court rejected this, stating there is no provision requiring the Appellate Commissioner to hear the revenue in a first appeal under the Finance Act, 1994. The direction to dispose of the appeal was issued in the presence of the revenue's counsel, who did not seek inclusion for a hearing.

5. Computation of Tax Dues and Relief:
The revenue's computation reduced the demand under OinO 2 to Rs. 10,00,775/- after acknowledging the duplicated demand. However, they argued that the duplicated amount could not be used as pre-deposit for the current demand. The Court found this argument misconceived, as the duplicated demand should not have been raised at all. The petitioner's computation, considering the pre-deposit of Rs. 19,15,491/-, was accepted.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and accepting the petitioner's computation. The Sabka Vishwas Scheme aims to close legacy tax disputes fairly, and the duplicated demands in this case justified the petitioner's claim without further payment. The appeal was deemed maintainable, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.

---