2021 (4) TMI 1105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pectively) to assume jurisdiction and issue form SVLDRS-3 either electronically or manually allowing the Petitioner to pay tax dues beyond 30th June, 2020 either electronically or manually and thereafter issue the discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 manually. 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a company having its registered office at Patna and carrying on business activities in Odisha. It provides security and allied services to individuals and corporate houses. It has a valid service tax registration and has been paying taxes and filing returns. 3. By an order-in-original dated 28th March, 2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhubaneswar arising out of a show cause notice (SCN) dated 11th February 2014, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cuments and information sought by the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate. 8. Under an amendment to SVLDRS Rules with effect from 14th May, 2020 the Designated Committees were required to send the SVLDRS-3 containing the tax dues as determined by them, by 31st May, 2020. The last date for payment of such tax dues was also extended till 30th June, 2020 for all class of declarants. 9. When the Petitioner did not receive the SVLDRS-3 by the extended date, it sought the reasons therefor and was informed by Opposite Party No.3 that its declaration has been transferred to Opposite Party No.4. On its part Opposite Party No.4 informed the Petitioner that its declaration had not been transferred. Despite addressing queries to the Bhubaneswar Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sionerate i.e. Opposite Party No.4. Pursuant to SVLDRS-2 issued by the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate, the Petitioner had in fact uploaded the documents in SVLDRS-2A in the portal of the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate. 12. There is no denial of the above facts by the Opposite parties. In the considered view of the Court, the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 are not justified in contending that only because the Petitioner filed SVLDRS-1 before the Rourkela Commissionerate, its request for acceptance of the declaration and payment of the admitted tax amount could not be considered. The Court finds this to be a hyper technical approach. 13. As regards the Petitioner not availing the opportunity of hearing, the Court finds plausible the explanation off....