TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities had attached the goods of the petitioner on account of non-payment of central excise. Initially, 1636 mts. of sponge iron, valued at Rs. 2,37,18,155/-, was attached on 29.09.2016. Subsequently, 4300 mts. of sponge iron was attached on 18.01.2019 to recover an amount of Rs. 8,38,09,828/-. At that stage, the Government of India had introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) for the purpose of closing past disputes and to ensure early recovery of unpaid taxes. As the petitioner was eligible to apply under the said scheme, an application was made for settlement of all liabilities under the Central Excise Act. The authorities had thereupon, crystallised the amount due under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 to the Branch Manager of the 6th respondent, calling upon the 6th respondent to issue a demand draft of the compensation payable by the 6th respondent in favour of the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Tax, Tirupati and not to release any amount to the petitioner without prior approval of the department. The petitioner had reiterated its request of 10.11.2019, by another letter dated 27.11.2019. 4. In reply to the said requests of the Petitioner, the third respondent by his impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2019, had rejected the request of the Petitioner on the ground that "the amounts to be payable under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 are to be deposited under a separate accounting head, as was mandated by the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the petitioner was rejected." 7. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the official respondents that any amounts paid by the 6th respondent-insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to ask for adjustment of the compensation amount payable by the 6th respondent against the amount due under the scheme. He further submits that the 6th respondent had issued a joint despatch voucher for a sum of Rs. 4,60,73,182/- dated 29.09.2020 for paying out the said money to the Central Excise Department. Sri Krishna Grandhi, appearing for the 6th Respondent submits that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme. As pointed out by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited v. Union of India and ors., CDJ 2020 DHC 640, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under the Central Excise and Service Tax and to allow the businesses to make a fresh beginning. The stand of the Respondents in this regard is clearly hyper technical and arbitrary. The further stand of the Respondents that the last date for payment has expired on 30.09.2020 is also not acceptable. The....