Sabka Vishwas Scheme manual processing allowed despite minor remittance mismatch, with interim stay on parallel service tax proceedings.

A bona fide attempt to remit the declared amount before the scheme cut-off should not fail because of a trivial rounding-off mismatch between the challan and the remittance, where the administrative instruction allows manual processing. The petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was therefore directed to be processed manually. Pending service tax proceedings were also restrained during that processing period, because parallel continuation of the appeal and show-cause notice would undermine the relief sought under the Scheme. The writ petition thus secured manual consideration of the declaration and interim protection from coercive tax proceedings until the application was decided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was liable to be manually processed despite a minor mismatch between the challan amount and the remittance attempted before the cut-off date. (ii) Whether pending service tax proceedings could be kept in abeyance while the petitioner's application was processed under the Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was liable to be manually processed despite a minor mismatch between the challan amount and the remittance attempted before the cut-off date.

Analysis: The attempted payment was made before the statutory deadline and the only impediment was a negligible difference arising from rounding off between the amount mentioned in the challan and the amount sought to be remitted. The Authority's manual-processing instruction was accepted as applicable, and the factual matrix showed bona fide compliance efforts by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The application was directed to be processed manually, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether pending service tax proceedings could be kept in abeyance while the petitioner's application was processed under the Scheme.

Analysis: Since the petitioner's declaration was to be considered manually under the Scheme, continuation of the pending service tax appeal and the show-cause notice during that interregnum would defeat the purpose of the requested relief. Interim protection was therefore warranted until a decision was taken on the application.

Conclusion: The respondents were restrained from proceeding with the pending service tax litigation during the processing of the petitioner's application, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the petitioner obtained the benefit of manual processing under the Scheme along with interim protection against parallel coercive tax proceedings until the application was decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide attempt to remit the declared amount before the cut-off date should not fail for a trivial rounding-off discrepancy, and the application may be directed to be processed manually where the administrative instruction permits such accommodation.

---