TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants writ petition, reduces tax liability under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, favorable outcome for petitioner.</h1> <h3>Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors.</h3> Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors. - [2022] 104 G S.T.R. 221 (Del) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the demand raised against the petitioner under the Finance Act, 2019.2. Dispute regarding the amount payable by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019.3. Calculation of the tax liability considering the disallowed CENVAT credit.4. Application of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.5. Validity of the rectification application rejection by the Designated Committee.Issue 1: Interpretation of the demand raised against the petitioner under the Finance Act, 2019:The petitioner contested the demand of Rs. 16,61,78,084/- raised against them under the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner claimed entitlement to a 50% rebate under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, reducing the payable amount to Rs. 8,30,89,042/-. The respondents argued that the petitioner should pay Rs. 5,95,38,784/-, considering the disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,07,72,766/-.Issue 2: Dispute regarding the amount payable by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019:The petitioner contended that they had already paid Rs. 6,39,36,641/- and should only pay the remaining Rs. 1,91,52,401/- towards tax. However, the respondents insisted on the higher amount of Rs. 5,95,38,784/-, emphasizing the disallowed CENVAT credit.Issue 3: Calculation of the tax liability considering the disallowed CENVAT credit:The respondents argued that the disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,07,72,766/- should be added to the demand amount. The petitioner claimed that this amount was already embedded in the demand of Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, citing the operative directions in the order-in-original dated 20.04.2015.Issue 4: Application of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The respondents relied on Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to assert their right to recover the disallowed CENVAT credit along with interest. The court analyzed the provisions and their implications on the demand raised against the petitioner.Issue 5: Validity of the rectification application rejection by the Designated Committee:The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the statement and order rejecting the rectification application. The Designated Committee was directed to issue a fresh statement considering the court's interpretation of the demand and the applicable provisions. The court found in favor of the petitioner's calculation of the tax liability and disposed of the petition accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
