2022 (4) TMI 1157 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner wins appeal challenging duty & penalty under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, CBIC circular

The petitioner challenged the rejection under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and a CBIC circular, seeking limits on the Designated Committee's powers. Their ... Rejection of application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - applicability of Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019 - power of Designated Committee constituted to adjudicate upon the admissibility of the declaration made, beyond the parameters stipulated under Sections 122 and 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- At this juncture, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, as, according to Mr. Bhushan, the petitioner has succeeded in its appeal preferred before the Tribunal - In case the revenue were to carry the matter further, and if the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal is reversed, the petitioner will have the liberty to revive the instant writ petition. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to rejection under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, challenge to CBIC circular, declaration of Designated Committee's powers, appeal before Tribunal, imposition of duty and penalty, corrigendum on penalty, appeal success rendering writ petition infructuous.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and also challenged paragraph 10(i) of the CBIC circular. Additionally, they sought a declaration that the Designated Committee under the Scheme cannot adjudicate beyond the parameters of the Finance Act, 2019.2. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original before the Tribunal, which was allowed. It was noted that the appeals of other co-noticees were also allowed, who had not attempted to seek benefits under the Scheme like the petitioner.3. The Order-in-Original imposed duty and penalty on the co-noticees, while a personal penalty was imposed on the petitioner's proprietor(s)/director(s)/partner(s). There was mention of a corrigendum regarding the imposition of penalty, but it was not placed on record during the proceedings.4. The writ petition was deemed infructuous as the petitioner succeeded in their appeal before the Tribunal. However, it was stated that if the revenue were to appeal and the Tribunal's decision was reversed, the petitioner could revive the writ petition.5. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of based on the success of the appeal before the Tribunal, with the petitioner having the option to revive it if needed in the future.