2022 (5) TMI 144 - HC - Service Tax

Court directs Committee to reevaluate matter, emphasizing lawful process, fair assessment, and avoiding unnecessary litigation for applicant.

Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Versus Union Of India

Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Versus Union Of India - 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 198 (Guj.) Issues:1. Challenge to SVLDRS Form 3 dated 04.02.2020 issued by Respondent No.3.2. Validity and legality of provisions regarding SVLDRS Form 3.3. Stay on the operation of SVLDRS Form 3.4. Direction to not initiate coercive action during the petition's pendency.5. Availing benefits under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute) Scheme, 2019.6. Discrepancy in the amount payable under SVLDRS Form 3.Analysis:1. The writ applicant sought various reliefs through a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant, a service provider registered under the Finance Act, challenged the SVLDRS Form 3 dated 04.02.2020 issued by Respondent No.3. The applicant requested the court to quash the form, issue a fresh form considering the deposit made, stay the form's operation, and prevent coercive action during the petition's pendency.2. A search operation in 2007 led to a show cause notice in 2009, demanding payment of service tax with interest and penalty. An Order in Original in 2010 confirmed a demand of Rs.83,43,470. The matter is pending before the Tribunal. The Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 was introduced by the Central Government, which the applicant decided to utilize.3. The applicant declared a liability of Rs.83,43,470 and made a pre-deposit of 50% of this amount. The Tribunal acknowledged this deposit. However, the Committee processing the claim under the Scheme deducted only a portion of the deposit, showing the balance as payable due to non-payment.4. The Court heard arguments from both parties. The respondents claimed the Committee acted within the scheme's framework, considering a different demand amount. The Court found this stance confusing, especially as the Tribunal had acknowledged the deposit made by the applicant.5. The Court directed the Committee to reevaluate the matter, considering the Tribunal's order, and proceed lawfully. The Court emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary litigation for the applicant. The writ application was disposed of, granting eight weeks for the reevaluation process.6. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the applicant's liability under the Scheme, emphasizing the importance of proper consideration of previous deposits and avoiding unnecessary legal disputes for the applicant.