Service tax SVLDRS: no later interest or penalty after valid quantification, declaration misclassification cannot defeat Sections 124-129 rights

HC held that once a valid quantification of service tax dues was made prior to 30 June 2019 and a discharge certificate under SVLDRS was issued, the revenue could not subsequently demand interest or penalty for the same period. The assessee was rightly eligible under Sections 124 and 125 of the Finance Act, 2019, and mere misclassification of the declaration under "arrears" instead of "audit/investigation" did not defeat substantive entitlement. The impugned show-cause notices demanding interest and penalty were declared ex facie illegal and contrary to Sections 124, 126, 128, 129 and Article 265. Respondent was directed to treat the declaration under investigation category and extend corresponding scheme benefits; petition allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether, after issuance of a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, any further demand of duty, interest or penalty can be raised for the same matter and time period.

1.2 Whether the petitioner was eligible under the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category of the SVLDRS and entitled to correction of its declaration under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019, including deduction of pre-deposits under Section 124(2).

1.3 Whether the show cause notices demanding interest on delayed payment of service tax, issued after grant of the discharge certificate, were without jurisdiction and contrary to Sections 124, 126 and 129 of the Finance Act, 2019 and Article 265 of the Constitution.

1.4 Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Effect of discharge certificate under SVLDRS on further demands for same matter/period

Legal framework:

2.1 Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019 prescribes the quantum of "relief" under SVLDRS in different situations, including where tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit and have been quantified on or before 30 June 2019, and mandates deduction of any amount already paid as pre-deposit or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit.

2.2 Section 129(1) provides that every discharge certificate issued under Section 126 "shall be conclusive as to the matter and time period stated therein", and that: (a) the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the matter and time period covered; (b) the declarant shall not be liable to be prosecuted for such matter and period; and (c) no matter and time period covered shall be reopened in any other proceeding.

2.3 Section 129(2) carves out limited exceptions, permitting (i) proceedings for subsequent periods on the same matter; (ii) proceedings for different matters for the same period; and (iii) reopening in cases of "voluntary disclosure" where material particulars are later found false within one year.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.4 The Court found that the petitioner's tax liability under audit was quantified at Rs. 41,91,121/- on 22 March 2019, i.e., prior to 30 June 2019, thus meeting the requirement in Section 124(1)(d) and Section 125(1)(e) for eligibility under the audit/enquiry/investigation category.

2.5 The petitioner filed SVLDRS-1, the declaration was accepted, Form SVLDRS-3 was issued on 6 January 2020 determining Rs. 8,41,577.20/- payable under the Scheme, which the petitioner paid, and Form SVLDRS-4 (discharge certificate) was issued on 22 February 2020 certifying "full and final settlement of tax dues as per Form SVLDRS-3".

2.6 The Court held that, by the explicit language of Section 129(1), once such discharge certificate is issued, it is conclusive as to "the matter and time period" stated therein, and the declarant cannot be asked to pay any further duty, interest or penalty for that matter and period nor can the matter and period be reopened in any proceeding under the indirect tax enactment.

2.7 The case did not fall within the exceptions in Section 129(2): there was no allegation of falsity, mis-statement, mis-declaration or suppression in the petitioner's declaration; and the impugned notices related to the same matter and the same period, not to a subsequent period or different matter.

2.8 Relying on prior decisions (including Thought Blurb, Capgemini Technology Services, Delight Fortune and Bhawna Malhotra), the Court reiterated that, once the discharge certificate is issued, issuance of further notices for interest and penalty for the very same matter and period is violative of Section 129.

Conclusions:

2.9 The discharge certificate dated 22 February 2020 under SVLDRS is conclusive as to the petitioner's tax dues for the matter and period covered by the audit communication dated 22 March 2019.

2.10 The petitioner cannot be saddled with any further duty, interest or penalty for the same matter and time period after issuance of such discharge certificate.

Issue 2 - Eligibility under audit/enquiry category, correction under Section 128 and deduction of pre-deposits under Section 124(2)

Legal framework:

2.11 Section 124(1)(d) grants relief where tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit and the amount has been quantified on or before 30 June 2019; and Section 124(2) mandates that any amount paid as pre-deposit or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit "shall be deducted" while computing the amount payable under the Scheme, with a bar on refund if such deposits exceed the amount payable.

2.12 Section 125(1)(e) specifies eligibility based on quantified amounts under enquiry, investigation or audit; none of the disqualifying clauses were shown to apply to the petitioner.

2.13 Section 128 empowers rectification of errors in the SVLDRS forms (including clerical errors) by the designated committee.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.14 The Court held that the petitioner's quantified tax dues of Rs. 41,91,121/- under audit as of 22 March 2019 squarely brought it within the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category under Section 124(1)(d) and Section 125(1)(e).

2.15 The Court accepted that, although the petitioner inadvertently filed its declaration under the "arrears" category instead of the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category, this misclassification could not deprive an otherwise eligible assessee of benefits conferred by the statute.

2.16 The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 21,37,210/- towards the quantified dues prior to 30 June 2019, in conformity with Section 124(2). Considering that, under the audit category, the petitioner's effective liability would have been 30% of the tax dues (approximately Rs. 12,72,346/-) and that the pre-deposit exceeded this, strictly no further payment was required under the Scheme; in spite of this, the petitioner further paid Rs. 8,41,577.20/- as per Form SVLDRS-3.

2.17 The Court held that Section 124(2) is mandatory in requiring deduction of amounts already paid as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit when determining the amount payable under the Scheme.

2.18 Following the reasoning in Bhawna Malhotra and Delight Fortune, the Court held that an inadvertent or clerical error in selecting the category in the SVLDRS declaration is rectifiable under Section 128 and cannot be used to deny statutory relief to an eligible declarant.

2.19 The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that payments made by the petitioner after accepting the audit quantification could not be treated as "deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit" within Section 124(2), finding such interpretation misconceived and inconsistent with the statutory scheme and contemporaneous circular (Circular No. 1072/05/2019-CX).

Conclusions:

2.20 The petitioner was eligible under the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category of SVLDRS based on the quantified audit amount as on 22 March 2019, and none of the exclusions in Section 125 applied.

2.21 The amounts already deposited by the petitioner (Rs. 21,37,210/-) before 30 June 2019 were required to be deducted under Section 124(2) while computing the amount payable under the Scheme.

2.22 The petitioner's declaration dated 14 December 2019 ought to be treated as made under the "investigation/audit" category, and the error in categorisation is rectifiable under Section 128.

2.23 The additional sum of Rs. 8,41,577.20/- paid by the petitioner was in excess of what was legally required and cannot be used to justify any further demand; the respondents are directed to consider the declaration under the correct category and grant the consequential benefit of that payment.

Issue 3 - Validity of post-SVLDRS show cause notices demanding interest and penalty

Legal framework:

2.24 Sections 124, 126 and 129 of the Finance Act, 2019 collectively establish: (i) quantified relief on tax dues; (ii) final determination of payable amount through Form SVLDRS-3; and (iii) conclusiveness of a discharge certificate as to duty, interest and penalty for the covered matter and period, with a bar on reopening.

2.25 Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.26 After issuance of the discharge certificate, the respondents issued communications and show cause notices dated 18 November 2020, 16 March 2021 and June 2022 demanding interest on delayed payment of service tax, including interest of Rs. 7,62,836/- and interest on Rs. 20,87,178/- for the period April 2016 to June 2017.

2.27 The Court observed that these demands pertained to the same matter and period which stood covered by the earlier quantified audit and by the discharge certificate, and there was no allegation of misrepresentation or false voluntary disclosure that could trigger Section 129(2)(c).

2.28 The Court held that raising fresh demands of interest and penalty for the same matter and period, after issuance of the discharge certificate, directly violated Section 129(1) and was "ex facie contrary to law".

2.29 The Court also noted that the respondents had disregarded the petitioner's detailed replies and persisted in issuing further notices, which was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents emphasising that SVLDRS is a one-time measure to close legacy disputes and grant immunity from interest and penalty upon compliance with the Scheme.

2.30 The Court underscored that, consistent with Article 265, tax and associated exactions (including interest and penalty) can be levied and collected only in strict conformity with the statutory framework; any demand contrary to Sections 124, 126 and 129 lacks authority of law.

2.31 Relying on Thought Blurb, Capgemini Technology Services, Delight Fortune and Bhawna Malhotra, the Court reaffirmed that issuance of notices demanding interest and penalty post-discharge certificate for the same matter and period is impermissible and undermines the object and purpose of the Scheme.

Conclusions:

2.32 The show cause notices dated 16 March 2021 and June 2022, demanding interest on delayed payment of service tax for the period April 2016 to June 2017, are contrary to Sections 124, 126 and 129 of the Finance Act, 2019 and lack authority in law.

2.33 Such demands violate Article 265 of the Constitution, as they seek to recover amounts beyond the statutory scheme and despite a conclusive discharge certificate.

2.34 The impugned show cause notices are liable to be quashed, and the matter cannot be reopened for the same period and tax dues already settled under SVLDRS.

Issue 4 - Delay and laches in filing the writ petition

Legal framework:

2.35 The doctrine of delay and laches operates as an equitable bar to discretionary relief under Article 226, but its application is contextual and must not defeat just and legal claims, particularly where continuing illegality or lack of jurisdiction is alleged.

2.36 The statement of objects and reasons of SVLDRS states that it is "a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax as well as to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes", and provides for immunities from penalty, interest and other proceedings to those who pay declared tax dues.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.37 The respondents contended that the petition was filed belatedly in 2022 against notices issued in 2020-2021 and should be dismissed for delay and laches.

2.38 The Court held that, in the context of SVLDRS, where a discharge certificate has statutorily closed the matter, reopening by the Revenue through subsequent notices itself constitutes an illegality going to jurisdiction; such illegal reopening cannot be immunised on the ground of delay.

2.39 The Court found that the petitioner had been bona fide pursuing the matter with the authorities since the audit objections of 22 March 2019 and in response to the impugned notices; the chronology evidenced diligence rather than acquiescence.

2.40 Having regard to the statutory object of SVLDRS to provide a one-time clean slate and closure of legacy disputes, the Court reasoned that to non-suit a bona fide assessee on a plea of delay, when the Revenue had itself reopened a concluded matter, would be a "travesty of justice".

Conclusions:

2.41 The preliminary objection of delay and laches was rejected.

2.42 The petition was held maintainable and fit for adjudication on merits, particularly as the impugned action was without authority of law and contrary to the statutory closure effectuated by the discharge certificate.

Overall operative conclusions

2.43 The demands of interest and penalty raised through show cause notices dated 16 March 2021 and June 2022 were held to be ex facie contrary to the Finance Act, 2019 and without jurisdiction; they were quashed.

2.44 The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner's declaration dated 14 December 2019 under the "investigation/audit" category in terms of Section 128, to give due effect to Section 124(2), and to grant the benefit of the payment of Rs. 8,41,577.20/- under the Scheme, completing this exercise within the stipulated period.

---