TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....449, LD2912190001459, LD291290001463, LD2912190001478, LD2912190001531, LD2912190001539, LD2912190001557 dated: 29.12.2019 (Vide Annexure-C) by the Respondent No.3 in the interest of Justice and equity. ii) Direct the Respondent No.3 i.e., learned designated committee to hear and decide the applications in SVLDRS-1 in ARN Nos: LD2912190001418, LD2912190001449, LD2912190001459, LD2912190001463, LD291290001478, LD2912190001531, LD2912190001539, LD2912190001557 dated: 29.12.2019 (Vide Annexure-C) at the earliest in the interest of Justice and equity. iii) Such other and further order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the 1st respondent-State as well as learned counsel for other respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that during the course of proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, the statement of the Managing Director of the petitioner was recorded on 11.01.2019 in which he has specifically admitted that they had not discharged the service tax liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t.07.01.2020 of the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North West vide Annexure-F." 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to introduction of the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (for short 'the SVLDR Scheme'), the petitioner submitted a declaration dated 28.12.2019 seeking benefit of waiver of a sum of Rs.53,88,248/- in terms of the SVLDR Scheme. It is submitted that on 21.06.2019 itself, the petitioner had admitted and quantified the service tax payable by him of a sum of Rs.50,50,277/- and the same was done prior to 30.06.2019 as per the Scheme. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner submitting Form SVLDRS-1 on 28.12.2019, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.01.2020 followed by a Notice in Form SVLDRS-2 dated 23.01.2020 to which, petitioner submitted a reply in Form SVLDRS-2A on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince there is variance between the admitted/quantified amount by the petitioner and the amount mentioned in Form SVLDRS-1, the Scheme would not be applicable insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It is also submitted that the order in original has already been passed and consequently, it is impermissible to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there was no interim order and the same was not stayed by any Authority including this Court. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The undisputed material on record indicates that on 21.06.2019 i.e., prior to the cut of date 30.06.2019, the petitioner had admitted and quantified the service tax payable by him as Rs.50,50,277/-. 9. Under identical circumstances, in M/s. Bioneeds India's case (Supra), this Court held as under; "In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Quash the impugned order passed by the Designated Committee by way of letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing issues are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rules made thereunder: (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 by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc". 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid Circular that any duty / liability admitted by a person during enquiry, investigation, audit / audit report etc., and any admission in this regard has to be treated and construed as "quantification" for the purpose of Section 123(c) of the SVLDR scheme. In this regard, a perusal of the answer given by the petitioner to question No.7 in the statement recorded by the respondents (Annexure-E dated 12.01.2018) will clearly indicate that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner with regard to total sales service tax liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the petitioner- Assessee therein for the benefit of SVLDRS Scheme. 11. Under these circumstances, in view of the order passed by this Court in M/s. Bioneeds's case, which was rendered under identical circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order/communication dated 06.05.2020 passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed by declaring and holding that the petitioner having admitted and quantified that he is liable to pay the service tax prior to 30.06.2019, which was the cut off date, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the SVLDRS Scheme. In this context, it is also relevant to state that the petitioner has paid the entire sum of Rs.50,50,277/- to the respondents on 27.06.2019, 22.07.2019 and 29.07.2019 in three installments. 12. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner has already made payment of the amount in respect of which, he had claimed the benefit under the SVLDRS scheme much prior to submitting Form SVLDRS-1, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefit under the SVLDRS Scheme and rejection of the same by the respondents by issuing the impugned communication is clearly arbi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order dated 06.05.2020 and not the order in original dated 05.03.2021. It so transpired that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, in which, challenge was restricted and limited to the order dated 06.05.2020, since there was no interim protection/order in favour of the petitioner, the respondents proceeded to pass the order in original dated 05.03.2021. Under these circumstances, this Court noticed that the order in original has already been passed during the pendency of the said petition and disposed off the same as having become infructuous reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner. 17. It is needless to state that in order to attract bar of res-judicata, there should be determination of issues finally by the Court or Tribunal or the Authority and in the absence of determination of any issue or question that arose between the parties, in W.P.No.8051/2021 the bar of res-judicata would not be attracted. Further in the light of the undisputed fact that there was no determination of any issue or question in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.8051/2021, which was restricted and limited only to the order dated 08.05.2020 and not in respect of the orde....