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 Overturns Rejection of SVLDR Applications; Orders Review of Process Oil Eligibility Under Finance Act</h1> <h3>M/s. UITC India Pvt. Ltd., Sundergarh Versus Union of India and others</h3> M/s. UITC India Pvt. Ltd., Sundergarh Versus Union of India and others - 2023 (74) G. S. T. L. 66 (Ori.) Issues:Petitioner denied benefit under SVLDR Scheme invoking Section 125(1)(h) of Finance Act; Interpretation of 'excisable goods' under Fourth Schedule of CE Act for SVLDR Scheme eligibility.Analysis:The petitioner, a company manufacturing various goods, sought benefits under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) but was denied due to Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance Act. The petitioner's product, Process Oil, fell under the Fourth Schedule of the Central Excise Act, but the rate of duty was indicated as not leviable. The Court held that 'excisable goods' under SVLDR Scheme refer to goods subject to central excise duty, emphasizing that the petitioner's product was not outside the Scheme's purview due to the absence of excise duty. The Department's interpretation was deemed erroneous, leading to the quashing of rejection orders on SVLDR applications.The Court highlighted that the SVLDR Scheme aimed to resolve legacy tax issues and provide amnesty, benefiting taxpayers and focusing on small taxpayers with lower duty amounts. The Scheme excluded goods subject to central excise levy, such as those listed in the Fourth Schedule. The Court rejected the Department's contention of the petitioner's ineligibility, emphasizing that the absence of excise duty on Process Oil made it eligible for the SVLDR Scheme, contrary to the Department's interpretation.A direction was issued for the Department to process the petitioner's SVLDR applications, hear the petitioner, and provide a reasoned order within four weeks. The Court disposed of the writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of correct interpretation of the SVLDR Scheme and Finance Act provisions for fair application and benefit of the Scheme to eligible taxpayers.
TaxTMI 