2025 (1) TMI 940 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner's admitted service tax liability during enquiry qualifies as 'quantified' under SVLDRS 2019 scheme benefits

Mr. Santosh S/o Domaji Bhandarkar, Proprietor of Third Eye Security Services Versus The Union of India, The Designated Committee of SVLDRS, Nagpur, The Joint Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-I, Commissionerate.

Mr. Santosh S/o Domaji Bhandarkar, Proprietor of Third Eye Security Services Versus The Union of India, The Designated Committee of SVLDRS, Nagpur, The ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner's duty liability was quantified on or before June 30, 2019, during the enquiry or investigation, making them eligible for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).Whether the petitioner's admission of liability in their communication qualifies as 'quantified' under the SVLDRS.Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under the SVLDRS and the issuance of a show cause notice were valid.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Eligibility under SVLDRS based on quantification of duty liabilityRelevant legal framework and precedents: The SVLDRS was introduced to settle disputes under the old indirect tax regime. Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2019, defines 'tax dues' and includes cases where duty demand has been quantified before June 30, 2019. The term 'quantified' is clarified in a circular dated August 27, 2019, to include written communication of duty liability.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted 'quantified' to include any written communication acknowledging duty liability, such as letters or statements made during investigations.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's communication dated June 19, 2019, admitted a service tax liability of Rs. 97,54,079, which was acknowledged by the respondents.Application of law to facts: The court found that the petitioner's admission of liability before June 30, 2019, qualified as 'quantified' under the SVLDRS, making them eligible for the scheme.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner's self-estimation did not constitute an official quantification. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner's written admission sufficed under the clarified definition.Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was eligible for the SVLDRS based on their admitted liability communicated before the cutoff date.Issue 2: Validity of the rejection of the application and issuance of a show cause noticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: The SVLDRS allows for settlement of tax disputes if the taxpayer meets specific criteria, including the quantification of dues before a set date.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the petitioner's eligibility under the SVLDRS was improperly assessed, given their compliance with the scheme's requirements.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's application was rejected based on a misinterpretation of the term 'quantified' and the conditions of the SVLDRS.Application of law to facts: The court applied the clarified definition of 'quantified' and found that the petitioner's application was wrongly rejected.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' reliance on strict compliance with the scheme's terms was countered by the court's broader interpretation of 'quantified' as including the petitioner's admission.Conclusions: The court determined that the rejection of the petitioner's application and the issuance of the show cause notice were not sustainable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court stated, 'The word 'quantified' under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit.'Core principles established: The judgment emphasized that written admissions of tax liability before the cutoff date qualify as 'quantified' under the SVLDRS, making taxpayers eligible for the scheme.Final determinations on each issue: The court quashed the impugned communications, remanding the matter to the Designated Committee to consider the petitioner's declaration as valid under the SVLDRS and to provide a hearing and a speaking order within twelve weeks.