TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard. 2. This petition challenges the rejection of the declaration Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner under ARN No. LD3112190004536 dated 31 December 2019 (Exhibit-K). BRIEF FACTS:- 3. Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing outdoor catering services, which is exigible for tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax). 4. On 2 November 2018, summons under the Finance Act, 1994 was issued to the Petitioner and a statement of one Mr. Manjunath Nanda Poojary, Director of the Petitioner was recorded with respect to Service-tax liability of the Petitioner. In the said statement, the Petitioner admitted that there has been a default in payment of Servicetax dues on account of financial crunch. The Petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id during the said period and the final service tax liability due on that day, was worked out at Rs. 39,54,479/-. 8. Meanwhile, the Union of India came out with Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) for reducing the litigation by calling upon the assessees to make certain percentage of the admitted liability within the time frame specified therein and on payment of the same the dispute would be resolved without any penalty etc. The cutoff date for quantification of liability for availing the benefit of the said Scheme was 30 June 2019. 9. On 31 December 2019, the Petitioner applied in Form SVLDRS-1 for availing the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme. In the said form, the duty quantified was Rs. 69,26,979/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rejection as required by Section 127 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. He submitted that eligibility is not in dispute but what is in dispute is quantification. He also relied upon the FAQ's issued by the Respondents which are annexed at pages 68 to 70 of the present petition and submitted that since the present Petitioner has intimated in writing the admitted duty, the Respondents were not justified in rejecting the declaration. He further submitted that had an opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner then the Petitioner would have agreed to the demand raised in the show cause notice of Rs. 1,06,21,929/- and would have availed the benefit of the Scheme. He further submitted, on instructions, that the Petitioner is willing to ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner on 1 March 2019 addressed a letter to the respondents requesting the Respondents to work out the tax and inform the Petitioner so that the Petitioner can make the payment and waive the issuance of show cause notice. Admittedly, there was no reply by the Respondents to this letter. In the said letter also the petitioner admitted duty liability of Rs. 55,50,621/- based on its calculation and after reducing the amount already paid worked out balance duty at Rs. 703,784/- Therefore, the contention of Respondents that the duty involved in the course of investigation has not been quantified as on 30 June 2019 cannot be accepted and consequently the Petitioner becomes eligible under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 to ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the declaration is to be upheld then show cause notice will have to be adjudicated resulting into order in original against which appeal would lie to the first appellate authority and thereafter to the Tribunal and ultimately to the High Court and/or Supreme Court. Pending the appeal before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, the Petitioner would be required to pay only pre-deposit of certain percentage of demand and the balance will be stayed. In such circumstances, the Revenue will not get the benefit of recovering the amount demanded immediately but will have to wait for more than a decade, looking at the pendency before the appellate authorities and after a decade again for enforcing the demand if the Respondents succeed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion-45 (page 70 of the Writ Petition) also supports the case of the Petitioner that the quantification was done before the cut-off date. In the light of the above facts, we pass the following order:- ORDER (a) Rejection of SVLDR-1 declaration filed by the Petitioner vide e-mail dated 6 February 2020 is quashed and set aside; (b) Respondents to calculate the revised amount payable under the SVLDR Scheme by taking the duty quantified at Rs. 1,06,21,929/; (c) The revised quantification to be reduced by Rs. 29,72,500/- being pre-deposit made by the Petitioner and subject to verification; (d) The balance figure payable will carry interest of 9% p. a. from 1 April 2020 till communication by the Respondents t....