TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s case and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions set aside and quash the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021 (Exhibit "A1") issued by Respondent No. 6 and show cause notice dated June, 2022 issued by Respondent No. 5 (Exhibit "A2"); (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions hold that discharge certificate dated 22.02.2020 discharges the Petitioner from the payment of any further duty, interest, penalty and late fees with respect to communication dated 22.03.2019; (e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions direct the Respondents to consider the declaration dated 14.12.2019 ARNNo.LD141....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore 30 June 2019 as provided under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, to enable the Petitioner to the entitled and eligible for benefits under the SVLDRS. 12. The Petitioner filed an application Form SVLDRS-3 under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 allowing the third Respondent to rectify the clerical errors. The Petitioner made payment of Rs. 8,41,577.20/- as the amount quantified under the SVLDRS. 13. The third Respondent issued Form SVLDRS-4 i.e. Discharge Certificate dated 22 February 2020 on receipt of the above stated payment, certifying the full and final settlement of tax dues as per Form SVLDRS-3. 14. The fifth Respondent on 16 March 2021 issued the first show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment of service tax of Rs. 50,032/- (Rs. 25,294/- and Rs. 24,738) for the financial year 2014-2015 to 2015-2016. 15. The Petitioner by letter dated 21 December 2020 replied to the aforesaid show cause notice stating that it is not sustainable, mainly on the ground that the demand was made against the period, for which the liability of the Petitioner was already discharged. 16. The Petitioner by a letter dated 28 September 2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd surprise of the Petitioner issued two show-cause notices dated 16 March 2021 followed by another dated June 2022. The Petitioner was called upon to pay interest of delayed payment of service tax of Rs. 20,87,178/- for the period from April 2016 to June 2017. Mr. Raichandani would contend that such show-cause notices issued after the Discharge Certificate dated 22 February 2020 are completely without authority in law and without jurisdiction. 22. Mr Raichandani would emphatically reiterate that once Discharge Certificate has been issued by third Respondent towards full and final settlement of the tax dues as determined in Form SVLDRS-3 there could have been no further proceedings initiated by the Respondents. For such reason the action of the Respondents to issue show-cause notices and demand further interest of delayed payment is completely high-handed, contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019 and legally unsustainable. 23. Mr. Raichandani would contend that the total tax dues (disputed tax amount quantified as per audit observation) amounted to Rs. 42,41,153/-, qua the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner would have been liable to pay 30% of the tax dues i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2020 DHC DB 3130 is relied upon. There the Court held that even if there is an error or mistake apparent on record made by a declarant in filing the SVLDRS application, it would still fall within the scope of Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 and the resultant benefit under the Scheme cannot be denied to the Assessee. Case of the Respondents:- 28. Mr Subir Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents would on the other hand refute the submissions made, arguments advanced and case put forth by the Petitioner, emphatically. He would at the outset refer to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Ajay Anand Arya, Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Division dated 21 January 2023 and would adopt the averments made in the said reply affidavit. Mr. Subir Kumar has raised a preliminary objection. He would submit that the Petitioner had filed its declaration under SVLDRS on 14 December 2019 and Discharge Certificate was issued by the Respondents on 22 February 2020. However, the Petition is filed in the year 2022 against the demand notices dated 18 November 2020 followed by another dated 6 January 2021. Thus, the Petition suffers from delay and latches and ought to be dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SVLDRS 2019. The Respondent was therefore justified in issuing the said show-cause notice which was issued within the statutory framework and four corners of law. 35. Mr. Subir Kumar would contend that the Discharge Certificate is not for the tax liability already accepted and discharged. It is not for the amount already paid before the introduction of the SVLDRS 2019. Thus, the Respondents have committed no error much less any illegality in issuing the said show-cause notices. 36. Mr. Subir Kumar would submit that the decisions cited in the case of Thought Blurb (supra), Bhawna Malhotra (supra) and Delight Fortune Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cited by the Petitioner in the Petition are completely inapplicable in the given facts and therefore, are of no assistance to the Petitioner. 37. Mr. Subir Kumar, in the context of his submissions urge that the Petition is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed by this Court. Rejoinder Submissions:- 38. Mr. Raichandani in his rejoinder submission has relied upon on the affidavit in rejoinder filed to the Respondent's reply dated February 2023. He has adopted the averments made in the said rejoinder. 39. Mr. Raichandani would in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrears and,- (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 per cent. 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, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; (e) where the tax dues are payable on account of a voluntary disclosure by the declarant, then, no relief shall be available with respect to tax dues. (2) The relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) no person being a party in appeal, application, revision or reference shall contend that the central excise officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by issuing the discharge certificate under this scheme: (b) the issue of the discharge certificate with respect to a matter for a time period shall not preclude the issue of a show cause notice.- (i) for the same matter for a subsequent time period; or (ii) for a different matter for the same time period; (c) in a case of voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and proceedings under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted." A bare perusal of the above indicates that the issuance of such Discharge Certificate is not just conclusive of the amount but also of the full and final settlement of tax dues, once the same is issued. 47. We find that despite issuance of the Discharge Certificate dated 22 February 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contend that the Petitioner has not challenged the audit observations and amounts determined by the fourth Respondent and neither has chosen to file any appeal or claim refund for the voluntary payment. Such stand of the Respondent is misconstrued for reasons more than one. 52. The Petitioner, in the first place, being eligible under Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019, had correctly filed declaration under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 and none of the exceptions stipulated thereunder are applicable to the case of the Petitioner. Merely because the Petitioner had incorrectly filed its declaration under arrears category and not under audit, enquiry, investigation category would not deprive the Petitioner to claim relief which is available to the Petitioner eligible under the statutory framework of the Finance Act, 2019. So also, under the said Scheme the benefit available to the Petitioner was only to the extent as prescribed under Section 124 of the said Act. 53. Even going by the case of the Respondent, where the total amount of Rs. 42,41,153/- quantified/determined as far back as in 22 March 2019 i.e. much before the statutory cut-off date of 30 June 2019, the Peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onafide pursuing the proceedings with the Respondents right from a time when the audit objections were raised on 22 March 2019. It would be a travesty of justice to shut the doors on the Petitioner in the given case when the Respondents themselves have issued a Discharge Certificate to the Petitioner indicating final settlement and a quietus to any further litigation. 58. We now advert to the decisions relied upon by Mr. Raichandani in Thought Blurb (supra) and Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. (supra). In this context the coordinate Bench of this Court has gainfully referred to the statement of objects and reason behind the said scheme. It is observed that the scheme conceived as a one time measure as the twin objective of liquidation of past dues pertaining to Central Excise and Service Tax on one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other. Both are equally important; amicable resolution of tax dispute and interest of revenue. As an incentive, those making declaration and paying the declared tax in terms of the Scheme would be entitled to certain benefits in form of waiver of interest, fine, penalty and even immunity from prosecution, in certain cases. Thus, insis....