2021 (2) TMI 10 - HC - Service Tax

Court quashes order, allows pre-deposit, directs Sabka Vishwas Scheme review

M/s. Code Engineers Private Limited through its Director Mr. Abiraaj Rajan Versus Union of India and others

M/s. Code Engineers Private Limited through its Director Mr. Abiraaj Rajan Versus Union of India and others - 2021 (46) G. S. T. L. 400 (Bom.) , [2021] 88 ... Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the order dated 25.02.2020 issued by respondent No.3.2. Direction to reconsider the petitioner’s declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.3. Allowance of pre-deposit made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,02,55,913.00.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the order dated 25.02.2020 issued by respondent No.3:The petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 25.02.2020 issued by respondent No.3, which disallowed the pre-deposit made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,02,55,913.00. The court found that the verification carried out by respondent No.3 was not a full and complete verification as required under section 126(1) and rule 6(1) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The court observed that the designated committee should have independently verified the payments made by the petitioner, including the amounts of Rs. 46,44,094.00 and Rs. 56,11,819.00, and considered all documents submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 25.02.2020.2. Direction to reconsider the petitioner’s declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:The petitioner requested a direction for respondent No.3 to reconsider its declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The court highlighted the scheme's objective to liquidate past disputes and provide substantial relief to declarants. The court emphasized that the verification by the designated committee should not be confined to the show cause-cum-demand notice or the order-in-original but should be based on the particulars furnished by the declarant and the records available with the department. The court directed respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law.3. Allowance of pre-deposit made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,02,55,913.00:The petitioner contended that it had made pre-deposits totaling Rs. 1,02,55,913.00, which were not considered by respondent No.3. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted challans, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and an affidavit to support the payments. The respondents admitted receipt of Rs. 56,11,819.00 but could not verify whether the payment pertained to the period covered by the investigation. The court found that the designated committee failed to independently verify the payments and was influenced by the order-in-original. The court remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision after proper verification and consideration of all submitted documents.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated, set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2020, and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration and verification of the petitioner’s pre-deposits. The court directed respondent No.3 to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order within six weeks. No order as to costs was made.