TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 to deduction of the claimed CENVAT credit amount as a deposit made during enquiry or investigation under Section 124(2), and whether the impugned determination of the amount payable was liable to be interfered with.
Analysis: The scheme permits deduction of pre-deposit or deposits made during enquiry, investigation or audit, but the declarant had to establish that the amount claimed was in fact deposited or utilised after the commencement of such proceedings. The petitioner took inconsistent stands on the date of utilisation of the CENVAT credit, relied on a belated return and a general letter without proving the exact date of debit, and failed to produce the CENVAT credit ledger or other credible documents despite opportunities. In those circumstances, the respondents' verification-based findings and the consequent calculation could not be dislodged, and an adverse inference was justified against the petitioner.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed deduction under Section 124(2), and the impugned determination did not warrant interference.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the SVLDRS computation failed because the petitioner did not prove that the claimed credit was available for statutory deduction as a deposit during the relevant enquiry or investigation period.
Ratio Decidendi: A declarant seeking deduction of a claimed deposit or credit under the scheme must prove, with credible supporting material, that the amount was actually paid or utilised during the relevant enquiry or investigation period; inconsistent assertions and non-production of primary records justify rejection of the claim and adverse inference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
