SVLDRS review power and 30-day timeframe can be extended where reasonable reasons justify correction to prevent revenue loss

Section 128 time limit for review under the SVLDRS scheme is not mandatory where no statutory consequence is prescribed for delay; statutory concessionary provisions are to be construed in favour of the revenue, and the 30-day period is directory and relaxable if reasonable reasons are furnished. The principle that deadlines without prescribed consequences are not peremptory was applied, permitting suo moto modification of a previously issued statement to correct an arithmetical/clerical omission to avoid loss to the public exchequer. The petition challenging the delayed review was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment deals with the question of whether the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 can modify a statement declaring a reduced amount of tax payable after the expiry of 30 days of its issuance due to an arithmetical/clerical mistake.

Factual Background:
The petitioner's case was treated as under "litigation" under the SVLDRS Scheme, with the reduced amount payable being Rs.8,97,037.20. The petitioner paid this amount on 15.02.2020. However, the Designated Committee later issued a rectified statement increasing the tax dues to Rs.53,43,018/- and the reduced amount payable to Rs.26,71,509/-, which the petitioner did not pay, leading to the initiation of recovery proceedings.

Legal Principles Applied:
The judgment emphasizes that in cases involving concessions or relaxations in taxing statutes, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the Revenue to ensure the principal object of collecting revenue for the State is not compromised. The court cites previous decisions to support the strict interpretation of exemption provisions in favor of the Revenue.

Interpretation of Time Limits:
The judgment clarifies that when a statutory provision sets a time limit without specifying the consequences of non-compliance, such provisions are not necessarily mandatory. It highlights that substantial compliance may be sufficient, depending on the context and purpose of the provision.

Decision and Rationale:
The court concludes that the Designated Committee's review of the statement was justified in the public interest to prevent loss to the public exchequer. The oversight in including CENVAT CREDIT in the tax dues would have resulted in a significant loss to the Revenue if not corrected. The court finds the reason for the delayed review to be reasonable and not arbitrary, thus upholding the Revenue's action and dismissing the petition.

Judgment Outcome:
The petition is dismissed as lacking substance, with no costs imposed on the petitioner.

---