2023 (2) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Designated Committee has not adjusted the amount of INR 1,32,27,955/- already deposited by the petitioner (as interest under protest) during the stage of investigation against the amount payable under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of Schlumberger Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner, Central GST and others, passed in CWP-6845-2020, decided on 30.11.2021 wherein the petitioner was served with a show cause notice whereby further amount of Rs.9,86,53,074/- was sought to be recovered on account of cenvat credit. This amount included interest and penalty as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d,- (i) the amount of duty is, rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent of the tax dues; (ii) the amount of duty is more than rupees fifty lakhs, 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 percent 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, seve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposit' need to be deducted while finalizing the computation. Amount deposited by the petitioner falls in the second category. The provision only talks of amount irrespective of whether it has been paid as tax or interest or penalty. Thus, the view taken by the Designated Committee cannot be sustained. There is another side to the story. Had the petitioner remitted the entire amount paid by him towards tax, the respondents would have given credit of entire amount and his interest liability would have been waived off as well. The petitioner cannot be punished for depositing the amount under different heads once the provision mandates to discount the amount paid during the investigation dehors the head it has been deposited under. ....