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 upholds petitioner's right to correct tax dues under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, emphasizes liberal interpretation</h1> <h3>Mukesh Jain, Proprietor Of M/s. Jainsons Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> Mukesh Jain, Proprietor Of M/s. Jainsons Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 2023 (70) G. S. T. L. 365 (Del.) Issues involved:1. Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.2. Determination of tax dues under the Scheme based on the original order-in-original or the SCN.3. Applicability of the Scheme in cases where the order-in-original has been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.4. Consideration of tax dues in the context of pending litigation and appeal proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019The petitioner sought to avail the benefits of the Scheme enacted under the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The Scheme aimed to resolve legacy disputes related to tax dues. The petitioner filed a declaration under the Scheme in the litigation category, specifying the duty amount determined in the order-in-original and the amount payable. However, the Designated Committee determined a higher amount payable based on the demand in the SCN, leading to a dispute regarding the correct computation of tax dues under the Scheme.Issue 2: Determination of tax dues under the SchemeThe petitioner argued that the correct amount of tax dues should be based on the reduced demand determined in the order-in-original, which had attained finality as the Department did not appeal against it. The petitioner contended that the Designated Committee erred in relying on the SCN amount instead of the corrected demand in the order-in-original. Legal precedents were cited to support the petitioner's position that the tax dues should be based on the order-in-original amount, especially when no appeal was filed against the reduced demand.Issue 3: Applicability of the Scheme in remanded casesThe respondent argued that since the order-in-original was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, a new determination of tax dues based on the original demand in the SCN was justified. However, the court held that in the de novo proceedings, the SCN survived only for the adjudication of tax dues confirmed by the original authority in the first round of litigation. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be prejudiced by the remand order and should be allowed to pay the tax dues based on the original assessment accepted by the Department.Issue 4: Consideration of tax dues in pending litigation and appeal proceedingsThe court noted the inconsistency in the Department's stance, accepting the reduced demand in the order-in-original before the Tribunal but relying on the higher demand in the SCN for the Scheme. The court emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of the Scheme to resolve legacy disputes and allow businesses to start afresh. Ultimately, the court directed the Designated Committee to determine the tax dues based on the amount confirmed by the original authority in the first round of litigation, setting aside the previous determination and ensuring the petitioner's right to pay the correct amount under the Scheme.This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, the determination of tax dues, the applicability of the Scheme in remanded cases, and the consideration of tax dues in pending litigation and appeal proceedings as addressed in the judgment.
TaxTMI 