TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period from 2012-13 to 2017-18 to the tune of Rs. 1,53,11,355/-. The working of tax liability has been mentioned in the show cause notice dated 24.09.2020 which is impugned here. The petitioner paid service tax of INR 20,41,602/- and INR 11,10,675/- respectively. 3.1. In the year 2019, Central Government by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SVLDR Scheme') providing for settlement of legacy disputes relating to central excise and service tax by paying certain specified percentage of tax dues. 3.2. On 16.09.2019, the petitioner informed the respondent no.3 showing his inclination to opt for the SVLDR Scheme. On 24.11.2019, an application was filed and the declaration was made under the category 'Investigation, Inquiry or Audit' and sub-category 'Investigation by Commissionerate'. The petitioner declared the total sum of Rs.1,29,36,305/- as unpaid service tax liability and accordingly, INR 53,57,477.50/- was required to be paid under the scheme after claiming the deduction of pre-deposite of INR 11,10,675/-. 3.3. The petitioner was unable to make payment as per the acknowledgment. It onc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Division-I, Surat at Annexure-Q; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order granting the payment of INR 53,57,477.50/- in 24 equal monthly installments to the petitioner as per declaration under Form SVLDR-1 by the petitioner on 31.12.2019 under SVLDR Scheme, 2019; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause cum demand notice dated 24.09.2020 issued by the respondent no. 03 - at Annexure-M; (D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned show cause notice dated 24.09.2020 issued by the respondent no.03 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-M; (E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 4. The affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4 has been filed wherein it has g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....permitted and, secondly, whether the show cause notices dated 24.09.2020 and 23.09.2021 would require any indulgence. 7. Without reiterating all that has been pleaded before this Court and as mentioned herein above, the Court needs to refer as to whether the difficulties presented by the petitioner before us is genuine for the Court to intervene and indulge. 7.1. It is quite apparent from the chronology of the events that the petitioner was subjected to the search and afterwards when the respondent has come out with the SVLDR Scheme in the year 2019, the last date of payment of dues by the declarant under sub-section (5) of Section 127 was eventually fixed at 28.02.2021. 7.2. The two aspects would weigh with this Court, firstly, it was an unprecedented circumstance of the worldwide pandemic due to COVID-19 virus. The Apex Court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 03 of 2020 due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic had taken a suo motu cognizance of the difficulties that may be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings. On 23.03.2020 the Court directed the extension of period of limitation in all proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. "Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements" 8. This Court noticed that in his letter addressed to the Joint Commissioner on 01.07.2020, the petitioner had pleaded his financial hardship due to non-receipt of the amount from the various government entities. List of amount due also had been provided to the offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isting between the parties and hence, the request of the petitioner for allowing him to make the payment under the SVLDR Scheme needs to be considered. On its own, the authority concerned had extended the same under sub-section (5) of Section 127 upto 30.06.2020 and for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh, the last date for payment of dues was extended till 20.02.2021. 10. It is not in dispute that the report of DG (System) and the Zonal Chief Commissioner of CGST and CX, as pointed out to us, reflects the amount of Rs. 3972.01 crores pending for realization as on 01.07.2020 in respect of 23,781 ARNs. Vide Circular dated 14.07.2020, the Chairman of CBIC directed the Zonal Chief Commissioner to contact major declarants who were unable to pay upto 30.06.2020 due to some difficulties and which they may be paying in a near future. According to the petitioner, the said amount is recoverable by 30.09.2020 in the prescribed format. This is also showing one kind of intention for extension of permitting the people to make payment under the scheme. 11. We noticed that reliance is placed on the decision of Madras High Court rendered in case of N.Sundararaj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1,34,16,629/- on 24.09.2021 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, penalty and late fees. The Board has made pre-show cause notice consultation mandatory for the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner prior to the issuance of show cause notice in case of demand of duty above Rs. 50 lakhs. This Court in case of Dharamshil Agencies (supra) has also dealt with the very issue as under: - "6. As stated earlier, the broad facts as stated in the petition by the petitioners, are not in dispute. The petitioners have basically challenged the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.4.2019 on the ground of being violative of the master Circular dated 10.3.2017 issued by the Board (Annexure-E). The short question, therefore, that falls for consideration before the Court is, whether the pre-show-cause notice consultation dated 12.4.2019 (Annexure-D) calling upon the petitioners at 13.55 hours to remain present before the respondent No.2 at 16.00 hours on the same day, could be said to be an illusory or an eye-wash notice only with a view to show the compliance of the Circular dated 10.3.2017 issued by the Board ? 7. At the outset, it may be noted that as per the settled legal p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the effective consultation, without considering the said request, the respondent No.2 issued the show-cause notice on the same day i.e. on 12.4.2019. Such a high-handed action on the part of the respondent No.2, not only deserves to be deprecated but to be seriously viewed. 9. Though it was sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate Mr.Vyas for the respondents that the petitioners had sought time to see that the demand for the relevant period gets timebarred as the returns for the relevant period were filed on 15.4.2014 and the demand for the recovery of service tax could be made within the period of five years, which was to expire on 15.4.2019, the Court does not find any substance in the same. It was the respondent authorities who had not issued the pre-show-cause notice for consultation immediately after the final audit report issued on 28.2.2019, and they waited till the last date on 12.4.2019, knowing fully well that the period of five years was to expire on 15.4.2019. If the respondents did not take any steps on time, and issued the pre-show-cause notice for consultation on the last date as an eye-wash, it could not be said that the petitioner assessee had requested f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Court quashes an order because the principles of natural justice have not been complied with it should not while passing that order permit the Tribunal or the authority to deal with it again irrespective of the merits of the case. ..." 11. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the demand raised in the impugned show-cause notice, the Court hereby sets aside the impugned notice dated 12.4.2019 (Annexure-D) on the ground that the petitioners were not granted an adequate opportunity for the consultation prior to the issuance of the said notice. The parties are relegated to the stage prior to the issuance of the impugned show-cause notice. The respondent No.2 will now issue afresh pre-showcause notice for consultation in view of the Circular dated 10.3.2017 giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of making effective consultation, and the respondent No.2 shall issue the show-cause notice only on having been satisfied for issuance of the same. It is clarified that the petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the respondent authority by providing necessary information that may be asked for and shall not raise the issue of limitation in respec....