Duplicated service tax demand cannot defeat Sabka Vishwas relief when prior payment is credited as pre-deposit.

Where two service tax proceedings covered the same construction projects and substantially overlapping periods, the later demand was held duplicated to the extent of the common period and could not be sustained as a fresh liability. The earlier amount already paid and appropriated in the prior proceedings was required to be given credit as a pre-deposit for computing relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The rejection of the declaration on the ground taken by the Revenue was therefore unsustainable, and statutory relief could not be denied by relying on a duplicated demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand raised in the second show cause notice and confirmed in the later order was a duplication of the earlier demand for the same projects and period. (ii) Whether the amount already paid and appropriated in the earlier proceedings could be treated as a pre-deposit for computing relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Issue (i): Whether the demand raised in the second show cause notice and confirmed in the later order was a duplication of the earlier demand for the same projects and period.

Analysis: The two notices related to the same construction projects and substantially overlapping periods. The quantified figures for the common period were found to be materially the same, with only minor variations. The later authority recorded that the demand for the common period had been clearly duplicated and that the earlier amount had already been paid and appropriated in the prior adjudication.

Conclusion: The later demand, to the extent it covered the common period, was duplicated and could not stand as a fresh demand.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount already paid and appropriated in the earlier proceedings could be treated as a pre-deposit for computing relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The Scheme required the designated committee to take into account deposits and pre-deposits already made while computing the amount payable. Since the amount had already been remitted towards the earlier demand and the later demand was found to overlap with that demand, the earlier payment could be recognized for the purpose of the Scheme. The Court also rejected the Revenue's objection based on restriction provisions in the Scheme, holding that those provisions could not be used to sustain a duplicated demand.

Conclusion: The earlier payment was rightly treated as pre-deposit for the Scheme computation, and the declaration ought not to have been rejected on the ground adopted by the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection under the Scheme was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to relief on the basis that the disputed demand was duplicated to the extent found and the prior remittance had to be given credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two proceedings raise substantially identical service tax demands for the same transactions and period, the earlier remittance already appropriated in adjudication must be given effect for Scheme computation, and a duplicated demand cannot be sustained to deny statutory relief.

---