2025 (9) TMI 1160 - HC - Service Tax

SVLDR Scheme grants discharge certificates; tax dues include SCNs; pre-deposits deductible not refundable; redemption fines covered under Sections 123(b),124(2),125(1)(a),129

Lokesh Pathak, M.P. Pathak Dead Through Lr, Art N Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Designated Committee, SVLDRS, Central GST, Delhi West.

HC allowed the petition, directing issuance of discharge certificates under the SVLDR Scheme. The Court held that 'tax dues' under Section 123(b) include ... Seeking directions to issue the discharge certificate in respect of SCN thereby concluding the proceedings initiated vide the SCN - whether redemption fine is to be considered as part of duty, penalty or the amount eventually payable and is hence, covered by the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (the SVLDR Scheme) or not? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 123 (b) of the SVLDR Scheme would show that `tax dues’ in terms of the said provision would mean the duty payable in a show cause notice issued prior to 30th June 2019. In the present case, upon remand by CESTAT, the SCN was to be adjudicated afresh by the Adjudicating authority. Thus, the SCN had raised a demand which was pending and yet to be adjudicated - this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners herein do not fall under the category of ineligible applicants, as stated under Section 125(1)(a) of the SVLDR Scheme. Thus, the declarations filed by the Petitioners under the Scheme shall not be deemed to be considered ineligible. Various amounts which are prescribed in the SVLDR Scheme are amounts relatable to the show cause notices, tax dues relatable to a show cause notice for late fee or penalty or relatable to amount in arrears. Different percentages have been fixed, which if paid in accordance with the Scheme, under Section 129, the discharge certificate is to be issued by the Department - Section 124(2) of the SVLDR Scheme makes it clear that if the tax payer has deposited any amounts as pre-deposit at the appellate stage, it would be deducted from the amount payable. However, the tax payer would not be entitled for any refund of such amount. A perusal of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would show that whenever there is confiscation due to non-payment of excise duty, seizure of relevant material can be done under Section 12F and a fine would have to be paid by the tax payer for release of the goods which have been confiscated. Such a fine is called the redemption fine. Hence, the seizure and/or redemption fine is nothing but a consequence of non-payment of excise duty. The same cannot be considered as a separate category of penalty, insofar as the applicability of the SVLDR Scheme is concerned - Under the SVLDR Scheme, Section 124 provides that only the part of the excise duty has to be paid, depending upon the amount of tax due. Hence, the same can be either 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of the tax dues and there is no requirement to pay either the balance tax alongwith the penalty or any interest. The redemption fine would be covered under duty and penalty and a separate mention of redemption fine was not required either under SVLDR Scheme-I or in terms of the clauses in the scheme itself - The scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reveals that whenever there is non-payment of excise duty in respect of any goods, there can be various consequences. There can be seizure of goods and/or relevant material, a redemption fine can be imposed for release of goods. Such seizure or imposition of redemption fine, is nothing but a fine being paid due to non-payment of duty. Once the duty itself gets settled under the SVLDR Scheme, it would not be appropriate to interpret the Scheme in a manner that would be contrary to the intention thereof. This Court is of the opinion that when penalties and interest are being waived under the SVLDR Scheme but the redemption fine is not waived, as is being argued by the Respondents, such an interpretation would go contrary to the fundamental purpose and the raison d'être of the SVLDR Scheme itself. In the opinion of this Court, the purpose of the SVLDR Scheme is to give a finality to a particular dispute and not to keep the aspect relating to redemption fine pending. Seizure cases are also no exception to this. Petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether appellants who had their Order-in-Original set aside and remanded by the appellate tribunal (with no final adjudication on merits) are ineligible to make a declaration under the SVLDR Scheme by reason of the exclusion in Section 125(1)(a) (appeal finally heard on or before 30.06.2019). 2. Whether redemption fine (imposed under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act or Rules in lieu of confiscation) constitutes 'duty', 'penalty' or part of the 'amount payable' / 'tax dues' under the SVLDR Scheme, and therefore whether payment under the Scheme and issuance of a discharge certificate extinguishes liability for redemption fine. 3. Whether the Designated Committee's interpretation excluding seizure/confiscation matters and redemption fine from the benefits of the SVLDR Scheme is lawful in view of the Scheme text, CBIC explanatory material (flyers/FAQs/press release) and judicial precedents. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Eligibility under Section 125(1)(a): finality of appeal vs. remand Legal framework: Section 125(1)(a) excludes persons who 'have filed an appeal before the appellate forum and such appeal has been heard finally on or before the 30th day of June, 2019.' Section 123(b) treats tax dues as the amount of duty stated in a show cause notice received on or before 30.06.2019. Precedent treatment: The Court examined the appellate order which set aside the OIO and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication without deciding merits. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate order did not finally decide the appeals on merits; it only remitted for fresh adjudication. Hence the appeals were not 'heard finally' within the meaning of Section 125(1)(a). The Scheme treats tax dues in relation to show cause notices pending adjudication; where adjudication remains pending post-remand, the demand remains non-final. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an appeal is remitted for de novo adjudication and not finally decided on merits, the declarant does not fall within the exclusion of Section 125(1)(a). Obiter - none necessary beyond application to facts. Conclusion: Declarants whose appeals have been remitted by the appellate forum for fresh adjudication are not ineligible under Section 125(1)(a); their declarations under the SVLDR Scheme are not barred by that provision. Issue 2 - Nature of redemption fine: duty, penalty or amount payable under the Scheme Legal framework: SVLDR Scheme definitions - 'amount of duty', 'amount in arrears', 'amount payable', Section 124 relief calculations, Section 127(8) discharge certificate issuance, and Section 129 immunities (no further duty, interest or penalty; immunity from prosecution; conclusiveness). Central Excise Act provisions: Section 12F (search/seizure) and Section 34 (option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation). Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): The Court relied on and followed decisions of various High Courts which held that redemption fine is a penalty in rem or part of duty/penalty for purposes of the Scheme and that the Scheme's benefits (including waiver of fine) apply upon payment as prescribed. Those authorities include the decisions reasoning that (i) confiscation is a penalty in rem and redemption fine is payment in lieu thereof, and (ii) absence of express exclusion of redemption fine from 'penalty' or 'duty' in the Scheme means it is covered. Conflicting or restrictive decisions were considered and distinguished on textual and purposive grounds. Interpretation and reasoning: Redemption fine arises as a direct consequence of non-payment of excise duty and operates as a penalty in rem under the Central Excise Act/Rules. The SVLDR Scheme's relief mechanism contemplates waiver of 'duty, interest and penalty' and defines 'tax dues' in relation to amounts stated in show cause notices and amounts in arrears. The Scheme's promotional/explanatory material (CBIC flyer/FAQs/press note) explicitly states 'Total waiver of interest, penalty and fine' and 'immunity from prosecution.' Absent an express statutory exclusion of redemption fine, a construction excluding redemption fine would frustrate the Scheme's object - finality and resolution of legacy disputes. The Board's contemporaneous explanatory material is a legitimate aid to interpretation where the statutory language is not plainly contrary. The Scheme also prescribes that payment of prescribed percentage of tax dues leads to issuance of a discharge certificate and consequent extinguishment of further liability for duty, interest and penalty for the covered matter and period. Therefore redemption fine falls within the Scheme's waiver if the declarant pays the prescribed amount under Section 124 and satisfies other Scheme conditions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - redemption fine is encompassed within the Scheme's waiver (as part of 'penalty' or 'further duty') and need not be separately paid to obtain a discharge certificate when the declarant complies with Scheme payment requirements; the Department's contrary narrowing construction is impermissible. Obiter - observations about reliance interests of taxpayers on Board FAQs and the inadmissibility of estoppel against a statute are persuasive but ancillary. Conclusion: Redemption fine is not a separate, excluded category outside the SVLDR Scheme; it is part of the duty/penalty consequences covered by the Scheme and will be discharged upon compliance with Scheme payment and conditions, resulting in issuance of a discharge certificate extinguishing liability for that fine for the covered matter/time period. Issue 3 - Lawfulness of Designated Committee's exclusion of seizure/confiscation/redemption fine Legal framework: Interaction between Scheme text (Sections 121, 123, 124, 127, 129), CBIC explanatory material, and statutory provisions permitting redemption fine upon confiscation. Precedent treatment: Multiple High Court decisions have construed the Scheme to include redemption fine and seizure cases within its ambit; several decisions have quashed Designated Committee rejections where they required separate payment of redemption fine. The Court accepted these authorities as persuasive and consistent with the Scheme's purpose. Interpretation and reasoning: A mechanical or restrictive construction by the Designated Committee that excludes seizure/confiscation and redemption fine from Scheme benefits conflicts with (i) the Scheme's textual scheme of waiver and discharge, (ii) CBIC explanatory materials issued contemporaneously with the Scheme which characterize benefits as including waiver of fine, and (iii) purposive construction directed at finality of legacy disputes. Taxpayers reasonably rely on Board's explanatory material; the Department must bear responsibility for representations it made in such materials. Where the Scheme provides a single mechanism to determine payable amounts and issue discharge certificates, segregating redemption fine as outside the Scheme would leave a residual liability inconsistent with the Scheme's object. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Designated Committee's exclusion of seizure/confiscation/redemption fine is legally untenable; the Committee must consider declarations involving seized/confiscated goods and redemption fine under the Scheme without insisting on separate payment of the redemption fine. Obiter - procedural directions about timelines for re-consideration and reliance on FAQs are pragmatic guidance. Conclusion and remedial direction: The Designated Committee's view excluding seizure/redemption fine is set aside. Declarants who have paid the prescribed percentage of 'tax dues' under Section 124 and complied with Scheme conditions are entitled to issuance of the discharge certificate under Section 129 extinguishing liability for redemption fine for the covered matter/time period. The Department is directed to issue the discharge certificate within the period prescribed by the Scheme (or within two months in the present petitions) after compliance with conditions. Cross-references Reference to Issue 1: Eligibility considerations in Issue 2 presuppose that the SCN/demand remains pending (see Issue 1 conclusion) and thus fall within 'tax dues' for Scheme computation under Sections 121 and 123. Reference to Issue 2 & 3: The textual Scheme provisions (Sections 124 and 129) read with CBIC explanatory material inform the conclusion in Issue 3 that redemption fine is covered and that exclusionary committee practice is inconsistent with Scheme purpose.