2023 (2) TMI 947 - HC - Service Tax

Court Quashes Committee Decision; Reconsiders Claim Under Sabka Vikas Scheme, 2019; Emphasizes Section 124 Deductions

M/s. Hilton Hotel Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and ors.

The HC allowed the petitioner's writ, quashing the Designated Committee's decision under the Sabka Vikas Scheme, 2019. The Court emphasized that under ... SVLDRS - Non-adjustment of amount already deposited by the petitioner (as interest under protest) during the stage of investigation against the amount payable under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The amount included interest and penalty as well. In the meantime, Finance (No. 2) Act 2019 was introduced by the Central Government. The object of the scheme was to provide the settlement of pending disputes related to indirect taxes. The petitioner being eligible under the said scheme availed the same by making declaration in Form SVLDRS-1. The question before this Court was that as to whether the petitioner is entitled for credit of amount deposited under the head of interest and penalty while quantifying the amount payable under the scheme. Section 124 (2) lays down that the relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as predeposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. Hence the provisions of Section 124 (2) is mandatory in nature that any amount deposited during enquiry, investigation is to be deducted when issuing the statement. Further the department has not filed any appeal against SCHLUMBERGER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND OTHERS [2021 (12) TMI 184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and thus this judgment attained finality, where it was held that Amount deposited by the petitioner falls in the second category. The provision only talks of amount irrespective of whether it has been paid as tax or interest or penalty. Thus, the view taken by the Designated Committee cannot be sustained. There is another side to the story. Had the petitioner remitted the entire amount paid by him towards tax, the respondents would have given credit of entire amount and his interest liability would have been waived off as well. The petitioner cannot be punished for depositing the amount under different heads once the provision mandates to discount the amount paid during the investigation dehors the head it has been deposited under. The impugned statement issued by the Designated Committee in the Form of SLVDRS- 3 dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) is quashed - petition allowed. Issues involved:Petitioner seeking writ to quash a portion of the Impugned statement under Sabka Vikas Scheme, 2019 for non-adjustment of deposited amount. Interpretation of Section 124 of Finance Act for relief calculation under the scheme.Analysis:The petitioner, a company, filed a writ petition to challenge the Designated Committee's decision not to adjust the amount deposited during an investigation under the Sabka Vikas Scheme, 2019. The Division Bench judgment in Schlumberger Solutions Pvt. Ltd's case was referred to, where the relief calculation under Section 124 of the Finance Act was discussed. The Court allowed the petition, emphasizing the provision's language regarding deductions from amounts paid during investigation, regardless of the specific head under which the amount was deposited. The Court highlighted that any amount paid during investigation must be deducted when determining the final payable amount by the declarant.The Designated Committee's decision not to adjust the interest amount already deposited by the petitioner was challenged. The Court noted that the relief calculation provision did not differentiate between amounts paid under various heads, emphasizing that the petitioner should not be penalized for depositing amounts under different categories. The Court highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, requiring deductions for amounts paid during investigation when issuing the final statement.In response to the respondent's submissions, the Court noted that the Designated Committee's calculation was based on the scheme's provisions, which did not allow for adjustment of amounts paid specifically against interest. The Court reiterated the Schlumberger Solutions Pvt. Ltd's case interpretation of Section 124 of the Finance Act, emphasizing the mandatory deduction requirement for amounts paid during investigation. As the department did not appeal the previous judgment, it had attained finality.Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Designated Committee's statement and directing a re-consideration of the petitioner's claim within four weeks, with adjustments for amounts paid towards interest and penalty. The petitioner was instructed to make the payment accordingly within four weeks of the revised statement issuance, resolving the main case and any pending miscellaneous applications.