TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (M/S) No.964 of 2020 preferred by the respondent- Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. 2. The respondent had preferred the writ-petition to assail the Form SVLDRS No.3 L050320SV300423 dated 05.03.2020 issued by the respondent and also sought a direction to the respondent to issue fresh Form No.3 after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,19,69,680/-, already deposited by the respondent. The respondent also sought a direction to the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.3,19,69,680/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. As the part of the Finance Act, 2019 the Parliament framed the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 which is contained in Chapter-V of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (iii) in a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein the declarant has indicated an amount of duty as payable but not paid it and the duty amount indicated is,- (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues; (B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit against the declarant and the amount quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 is- (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me into force and the respondent applied under the said scheme. The appellant department, in terms of Section 124 of the Finance Act issued Form SVLDRS-3 disclosing the estimated amount payable towards basic excise duty as 11,02,49,115/-. The respondent disputed the said estimate dated 05.03.2020. The respondent being aggrieved by the said estimate preferred the writ petition with the reliefs as taken note of hereinabove. 5. The case of the respondent-assessee was that the entire amount deposited by the assessee under protest, which included the amount towards Central Excise Duty and the interest computed thereon, was liable to be adjusted towards the tax liability payable under the scheme. 6. The stand of the appellant, on the other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount payable under the scheme. A bare reading of Section 124(2) reveals that the relief calculated under Section 124(1) is subject to the condition that any amount paid during the enquiry, investigation or audit has to be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. The bare provision talks of 'any amount paid', the same does not distinguish between the amounts paid under different heads. It clearly envisages two kinds of deductions firstly any pre-deposit made at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment and secondly, any deposit made during enquiry, investigation or audit. Both these species of 'pre-deposit' need to be deducted while finalizing the computation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eposited towards the Central Excise Duty and not the amount deposited towards the interest or penalty. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Schlumberger (Supra). He also drawn our attention to a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 12.12.2019, in relation to the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, which, inter alia, states as follows: "(ii) Section 124(2) provides for adjustment of any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit. However, an amount paid after issuance of show cause notice but before adjudication are not mentioned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dispute that the department has accepted the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and has not preferred to assail the said judgment before the Supreme Court. The appellant department cannot be seen to be adopting different yardstick in different cases. 13. In our view, the appellant department was not justified in estimating the duty payable by the respondent while ignoring the amount deposited by the respondent under protest. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Priyadarshi Manish that the amount deposited has no specific colour since the amount was deposited under protest and even before the crystallisation of the liability of the respondent-assessee as Central Excise Duty or as interest. Pertinently, the show cause notic....