2021 (12) TMI 618 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of Tax Relief Scheme, Petitioner's Appeal Remanded for Form Errors

M/s. S.D. Arun Associates Versus Designated Committee, Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise, Tuticorin.

The court interpreted the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019, focusing on tax relief calculation errors in the SVLDRS forms. The ... Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 - petitioner submits that the writ petitioner comes under the category 'Litigation' as appeals were pending as on 30.06.2019 - HELD THAT:- It is deemed appropriate to place on record appreciation of this Court for the fair approach taken by the learned Revenue counsel and the respondents. The first respondent shall issue a discharge certificate as sought for in the prayer in the writ petition either manually or electronically within eight weeks from today i.e., on or before 21.01.2022 - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019.2. Error in tax relief calculation under the SVLDRS scheme.3. Disputed tax balance and issuance of SVLDRS forms.4. Request for discharge certificate and rectification of errors.5. Stay on proceedings pending further instructions.Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019:The writ petition involved the interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) introduced under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 to settle disputed legacy tax levies arising due to the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime from 01.07.2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. G.Natarajan, argued that they fell under the category of 'Litigation' as their appeals were pending as of 30.06.2019, specifically related to service tax. The issue revolved around the correct application of the SVLDRS scheme and the calculation of tax relief percentages under the scheme.Error in tax relief calculation under the SVLDRS scheme:The petitioner highlighted an error in the SVLDRS-2 form issued by the designated committee, where the tax dues were inaccurately stated, leading to a discrepancy in the tax relief amount. Despite the petitioner having paid a certain sum of tax, the form incorrectly showed a balance due, attributed to a technical or secretarial error. This discrepancy was further compounded in the SVLDRS-3 form, causing confusion regarding the actual tax relief entitlement of the petitioner.Disputed tax balance and issuance of SVLDRS forms:The petitioner's appeal was disposed of, and the matter was remanded to the second respondent for further action. The figures regarding the tax paid by the petitioner were undisputed, but errors in the SVLDRS forms led to confusion regarding the tax relief calculations. The petitioner sought rectification of these errors to obtain a discharge certificate under SVLDRS-4, which was crucial for resolving the pending tax disputes.Request for discharge certificate and rectification of errors:The court acknowledged the inadvertent errors in the SVLDRS forms and the need for rectification to ensure the petitioner received the entitled tax relief and a discharge certificate. The respondents, through a counter-affidavit, confirmed the correctness of the petitioner's case, signaling agreement on the tax liability issue. Consequently, the court directed the first respondent to issue a discharge certificate to the petitioner within eight weeks, thereby resolving the matter in favor of the petitioner.Stay on proceedings pending further instructions:While recognizing the need to issue notice regarding admission, the court decided to stay the proceedings before the second respondent to prevent any irreversible actions until further instructions were obtained from the revenue counsel. The court scheduled the next listing for further proceedings and emphasized the importance of resolving the matter effectively and fairly based on the submissions made by both parties.