2021 (10) TMI 763 - HC - Service Tax

Court allows review petition, reinstates writ petition for reconsideration. Failure to consider statutory provisions cited for review.

Sri Srinivas V Versus Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue Central Board, Indirect Taxes And Customs, The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bengaluru, The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax Designated Committee On Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Bangalore

Sri Srinivas V Versus Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue Central Board, Indirect Taxes And Customs, The Commissioner Of Central Tax, ... Issues Involved:1. Quantification of tax liability as of 30.06.2019 under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.2. Eligibility for tax relief under the 'arrears' category of the Scheme.3. Grounds for review of the court's previous order based on statutory provisions and sufficient reasons.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quantification of Tax Liability as of 30.06.2019:The petitioner argued that their tax liability was quantified before 30.06.2019 based on the Service Tax Returns filed in Form ST-3. The court initially dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the liability was quantified only in the show cause notice dated 09.12.2019, which was after the cut-off date of 30.06.2019 as required under Section 124(1)(d) of the Scheme. The petitioner contended that the term 'quantification' should be interpreted in light of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 and Section 121(r) of the Scheme, which would include the computation in the ST-3 returns filed before the cut-off date.2. Eligibility for Tax Relief under the 'Arrears' Category:The petitioner also claimed eligibility for tax relief under the 'arrears' category as per Section 124(1)(c) of the Scheme. They argued that the Designated Committee should have considered their declaration in Form SVLDR-1 under the 'arrears' category, especially in light of the Circular dated 12.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The petitioner had expressed their intention to waive the right to a personal hearing and requested adjudication on merits to file a declaration under the 'arrears' category.3. Grounds for Review of the Court's Previous Order:The petitioner sought a review of the court's order dated 14.12.2020, arguing that the relevant provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 and Section 121(r) of the Scheme were not presented to the court due to a misconception of facts by their counsel. They claimed that if these provisions were considered, the outcome of the writ petition would have been different. The petitioner relied on precedents where courts allowed reviews when statutory provisions were not considered, establishing a case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.Court's Analysis and Decision:The court acknowledged that the petitioner’s counsel did not argue the grounds related to the quantification of liability and eligibility under the 'arrears' category, which constituted a mistake apparent on the record. The court emphasized that if material statutory provisions were not brought to its attention, it could constitute sufficient reason for review. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Girdhari Lal Gupta v. DH Mehta and BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, to support the proposition that a review is warranted when statutory provisions are overlooked.The court concluded that the failure to consider these provisions and the petitioner’s intention to claim relief under the 'arrears' category, as evidenced by their communication with the adjudicating authority, justified a review. The court found sufficient reason for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and decided to recall the previous order dated 14.12.2020, restoring the writ petition for reconsideration.Order:The review petition was allowed, and the order dated 14.12.2020 in WP No. 11190/2020 was recalled. The writ petition was restored on board for reconsideration and listed before the roster Bench on 01.10.2021.