AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an order of interim stay, in the above petitions, on a condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 31,95,832/-, Rs. 37,24,422/- and Rs. 97,63,032/- respectively (totalling to Rs. 1,66,83,286/-) before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". 3. By the impugned communications dated 12.02.2020 in Form SVLDRS-3, the petitioner has been called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,19,942/- as detailed below:- S.No. SOD No.& Date ST Demand Confirmed In O/O No.62- 63 dated (Rs.) SVLDRS Form I ARN/date Amount Quantified by the petitioner in SVLDRS-1#. Amount quantified as payable after relief under the SVLDR Scheme (Rs.) in Form SVLDRS-3* 1 SCN No.5/2014 Dt.21.10.2014 63,91,664.00 LD311290011000/31.12.2019 31,95,832 38,34,998 2 192/2013 Dt.05.06.2013 74,48,843.00 LD3112190010509/21.01.2020 37,24,422 44,69,306 3 133/2014 Dt.19.05.2014 1,95,26,064.00 LD3112190010686/21.01.2020 97,63,032 1,17,15,638 TotaL 3,33,66,571 1,66,83,286 2,00,19,942 Note: [# Calculated at 50% of the amount confirmed; *Calculated at 60% o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 22.02.2017 under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. 12. It is submitted that reminders were also sent to the Commissioner on 26.03.2019, 17.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 respectively. However, the petitioner did not get any reply from the Commissioner. 13. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2014 for the period between April 2012 to June 2012 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and consequently interest and penalty under Sections 75 & 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and thereafter, the petitioner was issued with periodical statement of demand under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 as above for the succeeding period which ultimately culminated in Order in Original No.CHN-SVTAX-003-COM- 62-65/2016-17 dated 22.02.2017. 14. It is submitted that with the announcement of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)Scheme, 2019 under Chapter V of Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner opted to settle the dispute under the aforesaid Scheme. 15. The specific case of the petitioner is that once the jurisdiction under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked to rectify the mistake in Original No.CH....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on application under Section 74 of the Finance Act 1994. The respondent has taken a specific plea that no application was filed under Section 74 of the Act. 23. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent. 24. The petitioner had filed the applications in Form SVLDRS-1 in time. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme. 25. The petitioner has quantified the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in terms of Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act, 2019. However, the respondent has quantified the amount payable by the petitioner in terms of Section 124(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Section 124(1)and Section 124(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019 read as under:- 124(1)(a) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section(2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows:- (a)Where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nferior forum is subjected before a supérior forum for the purpose of testing the correctness of the decision given by Appeal the inferior forum. The right of appeal is a substantive and valuable right of any appellant who is normally a person aggrieved by the impugned decision in Bolin Chetia v. Jogadish Bhuyan, (2005) 6 SCC81. 32. Although, an appeal is a continuation and rehearing of the original proceeding, appellate forum is entitled to take into account even facts and events which came into existence to it after passing of decree appealed against. Hence, if new enactment comes into force during pendency of the appeal, appellate court can also mould the relief by applying the new enactment [See Dilip v. Mohd. Azizul Haq (2000) 3 SCC 607]. 33. On the other hand, scope of interference under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 is limited. Proceeding under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 is before the same authority who passed the order sought to be rectified. 34. The power to rectify an order is confined only to remove the error apparent on the fact of record. Therefore, a rectification proceeding under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly. (1) Save as otherwise provided herein an assessee aggrieved by an order passed by a Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise under section 73 or section 83A by a Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under section 85, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months of the date of receipt of the order. Provided that where an order, relating to a service which is exported, has been passed under section 85 and the matter relates to grant of rebate of service tax on input services, or rebate of duty paid on inputs, used in providing such service, such order shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944): Provided further that all appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal in respect of matters covered under the first proviso, after the coming into force of the Finance Act, 2012 (23 of 2012), and pending before it up to the date on which the Finance Bill, 2015 receives the assent of the President, shall be transferred and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 35EE of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purposes of this sub-section, "jurisdictional Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioner" means the Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioner having jurisdiction over the concerned adjudicating authority in the matter. (3) Every appeal under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) shall be filed within four months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is received by the Committee of Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or, as the case may be, the Committee of Commissioners. (4) The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise or any Central Excise Officer subordinate to him or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of a notice that an appeal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise or the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A)] by the other party may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, within forty-five days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the presc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making orders under this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises and follows in hearing the appeals and making orders under the [Central Excise Act, 1944] (1 of 1944). 36. Once the language in taxing statute is clear, there is no scope in interpreting the same as the tax provisions has to be read as it is and nothing is to be intended. In this connection, the decision of the Privy Council in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [(1921) 1KB 64] wherein it has been held as follows :- "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only took fairly at the language used." 37. This view has also been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly in several cases dealing with taxing enactment. In Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) it was observed as follows:- 26. Justice G.P. Singh, in his treatise 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' (14th ed. 2016 p.-8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cott, (1948) 2 All ER 1]. The proper course in construing revenue Acts is to give a fair and reasonable construction to their language without leaning to one side or the other but keeping in mind that no tax can be imposed without words clearly showing an intention to lay the burden and that equitable construction of the words is not permissible [Ormond Investment Co. v. Betts, (1928) AC 143]. Considerations of hardship, injustice or anomalies do not play any useful role in construing taxing statutes unless there be some real ambiguity [Mapp v. Oram, (1969) 3 All ER 215]. It has also been said that if taxing provision is "so wanting in clarity that no meaning is reasonably clear, the Courts will be unable to regard it as of any effect [IRC v. Ross and Coutler, (1948) 1 All ER 616]." 38. Further elaborating on this aspect, the Learned author has stated as follows :- "Therefore, if the words used are ambiguous and reasonable open to two interpretations benefit of interpretation is given to the subject [Express Mill v. Municipal Committee, Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341]. If the Legislature fails to express itself clearly and the taxpayer escapes by not being brought within the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 124(1)(a)(ii) as no appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal. 41. The case of the petitioner was to be considered from the perspective of the definition of the expression " amount in arrears" as defined in Section 121(c)(i) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. which reads as follows:- 121(c) " amount in arrears" means the amount of duty which is recoverable as arrears of duty under the indirect tax enactment, or account of - (i) No appeal having been filed by the declarant against an order or an order in appeal before expiry of the period of time for filing appeal; or (ii) an order in appeal relating to the declarant attaining finality; or (iii) the declarant having filed a return under the indirect tax enactment on or before the 30th day of June, 2019, wherein he has admitted a tax liability but not paid it". 42. None of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are relevant. If the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against the Order in Original No.62-65/2016-17 dated 22.02.2017, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,66,83,286/- as was ordered on 17.03.2020. (ii)The petitioner shall also pay the interest at 12% p.a. on the delayed payment of (Rs. 1,66,83,286/- and Rs. 33,36,656/-) Rs. 2,00,19,942/- from the date of expiry of 30 days from the receipt of Form SVLDRS- 3. (iii)In case, the petitioner had failed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,66,83,286/- as ordered on 17.03.2020 and fails to pay the amounts as ordered now, the benefit of Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 shall not be extended to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,64,83,286/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Interim order dated 17.03.2020, the time under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was extended by Notification No.1/2020 dated 14.05.2020. It is further submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,66,83,286/- was also deposited by the petitioner on 30.06.2020. He has also filed a copy of the receipt. It is informed that the amounts were paid in four instal....