TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3,28,49,069.00 was not accepted by respondent No.4 as pre-deposit made by the petitioner thereby depriving the petitioner the benefit of the said amount while determining the quantum of tax relief and consequential amount payable which would have been nil if the said amount of CENVAT credit was treated as a pre-deposit. 4. Case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of providing digital advertising solution services. Being a service provider, it was registered as such under the Finance Act, 1994. It is stated that petitioner was filing service tax returns in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and making payment of service tax wherever applicable. 5. It appears that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the service tax department for alleged non-payment of service tax for the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017. By letter dated 01.02.2019, petitioner had informed the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Zonal Unit, Mumbai that out of the total service tax liability of Rs. 8,00,78,06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4,00,39,033.00 less Rs. 1,11,25,000.00). In the process, CENVAT credit of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,28,49,069.00 was excluded from the pre-deposit amount. It was mentioned that if the declarant did not agree with the estimated amount payable as determined by the designated committee, it should appear for personal hearing before the designated committee on 19.03.2020 to explain the reasons therefor. In the remarks column, it was mentioned that DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit in its verification report had stated that CENVAT documents were not yet verified as on 30.06.2019, the cut off date under the scheme. 12. In response thereto, petitioner filed Form No.SVLDRS-2A declaring that it did not agree with the estimate made by the designated committee pointing out that it had made payments through CENVAT credit which were not considered by the department. Petitioner further stated that it wanted to make a written submission and that it wanted to have a personal hearing. However, it indicated that it wanted to seek adjournment of the personal hearing fixed on 19.03.2020 suggesting 06.04.2020 as the preferred date for hearing. Petitioner has explained in the writ petition that it had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tee has taken decision on the basis of reports received from the Deputy Director, DGGI Zonal Office, Mumbai dated 04.03.2020 and 16.03.2020 whereunder DGGI had reported that only Rs. 1,11,25,000.00 was paid by the petitioner in cash as pre-deposit and, therefore, cash payment of Rs. 1,11,25,000.00 may be considered as pre-deposit. 20.1. Before issuing Form SVLDRS-3, designated committee had granted opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner vide SVLDRS2 dated 17.03.2020 and fixed personal hearing on 19.03.2020. However, petitioner had sought for an adjournment vide SVLDRS-2A. Accepting the request of the petitioner, designated committee adjourned the personal hearing to 30.03.2020. It is stated that petitioner neither attended the personal hearing on the adjourned date nor uploaded its supporting documents. Thus, petitioner did not disclose how it had taken CENVAT credit. Therefore, designated committee issued SVLDRS-3 on 05.05.2020 on the basis of the available record. 20.2. Referring to sub-section (3) of section 127 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019, it is contended that only one adjournment can be granted by the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Even if petitioner could not appear in the personal hearing on 30.03.2020, it could still have furnished the relevant documents online in support of its claim of CENVAT credit being treated as a pre-deposit which could have then been considered by respondent No.4. Since petitioner failed to do so, respondent No.4 acting on the letters / reports of DGGI Zonal Office, Mumbai dated 04.03.2020 and 16.03.2020 treated the cash payment of Rs. 1,11,25,000.00 only as the sole pre-deposit. No fault can be found with such exercise of power by respondent No.4. 23. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. Also perused the materials on record. 24. From the pleadings and submissions, it is quite evident that grievance of the petitioner is two-fold though both are inter-related. First grievance pertains to personal hearing denied to the petitioner and the second grievance pertains to non-consideration of the CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,28,49,069.00 as pre-deposit made by the petitioner while granting tax relief under the scheme. 25. Let us first deal with the first grievance of the petitioner. Chapter V of the Act deals with the scheme. Chapter V comprises of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(4) says that if the declarant wants to indicate agreement or disagreement with the estimate referred to in sub-rule (3) or wants to make written submissions or waives personal hearing or seeks an adjournment, he shall file electronically Form SVLDRS-2A indicating the same. As per the proviso, if no such agreement or disagreement is indicated till the date of personal hearing and the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing, the designated committee shall decide the matter based on available record. As per sub-rule (5), on receipt of a request for adjournment under sub-rule (4), the designated committee may grant the same electronically in Form SVLDRS-2B. As per the proviso, if the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing after adjournment, the designated committee shall decide the matter based on available record. However, sub-rule (6) deals with a situation requiring correction of arithmetical error or clerical error apparent on the face of the record by the designated committee on such error being pointed out by the declarant or suo motu. 27. From the above, what transpires is that when the amount estim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly fixed personal hearing on 19.03.2020. Petitioner while objecting to the estimated amount determined by the designated committee urged adjournment of the personal hearing fixed on 19.03.2020 on account of short notice and due to the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic. While petitioner suggested 06.04.2020 as the adjourned date of hearing, respondent No.4 fixed the personal hearing on 30.03.2020. 30. We have already noted above that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs acting as the National Disaster Management Authority had declared complete lock-down countrywide for a period of 21 days with effect from 25.03.2020 vide the order dated 24.03.2020 to prevent spread of Covid-19 pandemic. Directions were issued for strict implementation of the lock-down with violations being viewed seriously. When the entire country was under lock-down, it is beyond comprehension as to how petitioner could have attended the personal hearing scheduled on 30.03.2020 which date fell within the 21-day period of the lock-down. It was an impossibility on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was insisting on the petitioner to carry out such an impossibility. Having regard to the....