2025 (6) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the rejection of its Application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("the SVLDRS Scheme") and the consequent orders including show cause notice dated 23 February 2021, on various grounds, including inter-alia, non-consideration of CBIC Circular dated 27 August 2019, and the answers to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), prepared by the Department on 24 December 2019. 4. At the outset, Mr Mishra, the learned counsel for the Respondents, raised the issue of delay and laches. He pointed out that the impugned rejection was communicated to the Petitioner o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er No. DGGSTI/MZU/I&IS 'C'/12(1) 250/2018 Dated 03.02.2020." 7. The SVLDRS Scheme indeed requires the quantification of the tax dues as on 30 June 2019. However, the CBIC Circular dated August 27, 2019, clarifies the position. The clarification in para 10 (g) of this Circular is quite relevant and transcribed below: "(g) Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 are eligible under the scheme. Section 2 (r) defines "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It is clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e scheme. The ground for declaring the Petitioner ineligible, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. Besides, we note that in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that after the finalisation of investigation for unpaid service tax liability was found to be Rs. 1,16,82,896/-, which, varies from the admitted liability in the statement dated 04 January 2019, which was Rs. 1.21 Crores. 12. Thus, this is a case where the Petitioner had quantified the tax liability at Rs. 1.21 Crores, and the department, upon finalisation and adjustment, found that the liability would come to Rs. 1.16 Crores or thereabouts, i.e less than the liability quantified by the Petitioner. This could hardly have been a valid ground to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of interest can be considered. Though the rejection of the Petitioner's application under the scheme may not be proper, the Petitioner retained and used the amount for all these years. Since the Petitioner seeks equitable relief, the Petitioner should also be prepared to do equity and pay interest at some reasonable rate. 16. For all the above reasons, we quash and set aside the rejection of the Petitioner's Application under the SVLDRS Scheme on the ground of the Petitioner's alleged ineligibility. We declare that the Petitioner was eligible for the benefits under the Scheme. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the concerned authority for reconsideration of the Petitioner's SVLDRS Application and computation of the amount payable afr....