2025 (1) TMI 1263 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner wins challenge against committee's improper categorization under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019

M/s. Ons Buildtech Llp Versus Principal Commissioner & Ors.

M/s. Ons Buildtech Llp Versus Principal Commissioner & Ors. - 2024:GUJHC:22313 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner's case falls under the 'arrears' category or the 'litigation' category under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).Whether the designated committee erred in issuing Form SVLDRS-3 demanding a higher amount than what the petitioner claimed under the SVLDRS.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of paying 60% of the tax dues as per the SVLDRS provisions.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The SVLDRS was introduced to resolve legacy disputes related to indirect taxes. Key provisions include:Section 121(c) defines 'amount in arrears' as the duty recoverable as arrears when no appeal has been filed by the declarant.Section 123 outlines the determination of 'tax dues' under different categories, including litigation and arrears.Section 124 provides for relief calculations under the scheme.Section 127 details the issuance of statements by the designated committee.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court interpreted the SVLDRS provisions, emphasizing that the petitioner's case should be categorized under 'amount in arrears' as no appeal was filed by the petitioner before the cut-off date of June 30, 2019. The Court noted that the designated committee's classification of the petitioner's case under 'litigation' was incorrect since the department's appeal was filed after the cut-off date.Key evidence and findings:The petitioner had accepted the Order-in-Original without filing an appeal, making the demand amount final. The department's appeal was filed after the cut-off date, which should not affect the petitioner's categorization under the SVLDRS.Application of law to facts:The Court applied the SVLDRS provisions to determine that the petitioner was entitled to relief under the 'arrears' category. The petitioner had deposited 60% of the tax dues, complying with Section 124(c)(ii) of the SVLDRS.Treatment of competing arguments:The petitioner argued that their case fell under the 'arrears' category, supported by the fact that no appeal was pending as of the cut-off date. The respondent contended that the petitioner was not entitled to relief due to the pending departmental appeal. The Court favored the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the scheme's intent to reduce litigation and the department's appeal being filed beyond the cut-off date.Conclusions:The Court concluded that the petitioner's case falls under the 'arrears' category, entitling them to the relief of paying 60% of the tax dues, which they had already deposited.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore principles established:The categorization of cases under the SVLDRS should adhere strictly to the provisions and cut-off dates outlined in the scheme.The intent of the SVLDRS is to reduce litigation and resolve legacy disputes, which should guide the interpretation of its provisions.Final determinations on each issue:The petitioner's case is categorized under 'amount in arrears' as per Section 121(c) and Section 123(e) of the SVLDRS.The petitioner is entitled to the relief of paying 60% of the tax dues, having already deposited the amount.The designated committee's issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 demanding a higher amount was incorrect and is set aside.The respondents are directed to issue revised Form SVLDRS-3 and Form SVLDRS-4, accepting the deposited amount as the eligible amount for granting the benefit of the SVLDRS.The Court ordered the respondents to complete this exercise within twelve weeks, making the rule absolute to the extent of the petitioner's entitlement under the SVLDRS.