Service tax refund petition dismissed under SVLDRS-2019, petitioner's claim invalid. Ownership dispute advised in separate proceedings.

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of service tax paid under the SVLDRS-2019 Scheme. The petitioner's claim was deemed invalid as her registration as the proprietor of the firm, tax returns, and voluntary participation in the Scheme indicated her liability. The Court advised the petitioner to resolve any ownership disputes through separate legal proceedings against her husband, who was not involved in the present petition. The Court found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and concluded that the petitioner's arguments did not warrant a refund under the Scheme.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of service tax paid under SVLDRS-2019 Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a mandamus for a refund of the amount deposited following orders from 2015 and 2019. She claimed that her husband, not her, was the proprietor of the firm Creative Media. The Central Excise Department initiated proceedings against her, compelling her to deposit the amount to avoid penalties. The petitioner argued that the orders holding her liable were unjust and instigated by her husband.

2. The Department contended that Creative Media was registered in the petitioner's name as a proprietorship concern. Investigations revealed non-payment of service tax for the period 2009-2014. After a show-cause notice in 2014, the petitioner's liability was confirmed in 2015 and 2019. The petitioner then voluntarily applied for the SVLDRS-2019 Scheme in 2019, settling for a reduced payment of Rs.14,76,806 against the liability of Rs.33,18,514, obtaining a tax relief of Rs.18,41,708.

3. The respondent argued that the SVLDRS-2019 settlement had attained finality in 2020, making the present petition for refund not maintainable. The Scheme's provisions under Sections 129 and 130 of the Finance Act, 2019, state that the Scheme's decisions are conclusive, and no refund is permissible under any circumstances once opted for.

4. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for a refund under the SVLDRS-2019 Scheme was not valid. The petitioner's registration as the proprietor of Creative Media, her tax returns, and her voluntary participation in the Scheme indicated her liability. The Court emphasized that any dispute regarding the firm's ownership should be settled through appropriate legal proceedings against the husband, who was not a party in the present petition.

5. The Court concluded that the petitioner's arguments regarding her husband's actions and the firm's ownership did not warrant a refund under the Scheme. The petitioner was advised to pursue legal action against her husband for recovery. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---