TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od in this case is the financial year 2014-2015. On 07.11.2019, a demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 66B, 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 with the allegation that services worth Rs. 23,47,386/- was assessed for the concerned period and accordingly a demand of Rs. 2,90,137/- including cess was made. The petitioner had submitted a reply on 27.12.2019 whereby it had accepted the demand and agreed to pay the same. However, the petitioner had also requested to be given the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). Accordingly, the petitioner had filed SVLDRS-1, receipt of which was acknowledged on 31.12.2019. Consequently, the Designated Committee, after consideration of the matter had issued SVLDRS-3 and determined the amount payable as Rs. 1,16,054.80 which was paid on 20.01.2020. After such payment, SVLDRS-4 which is the Discharge Certificate was issued on 04.02.2020. According to the petitioner, after issuance of such Discharge Certificate which is not in dispute, the matter had come to a conclusion. However, the Assistant-Commissioner had passed an order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that SVLDRS is not applicable to the proceeding is not legally tenable inasmuch as there is a clear mandate of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) dated 12.12.2019 that even for cases where show cause notices were issued on or after 01.07.2019, it would be desirable that the tax payer in such cases also be given an opportunity to avail the benefit. He has submitted that it is not the case of the Department that such application was rejected at the threshold. On the contrary, the application made on 31.12.2019 was duly processed, amount determined, paid and Discharge Certificate was issued. He accordingly submits that the aforesaid ground of the appellate authority is unsustainable in law. 7. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon certain decisions including the following: i. Thought Blurb Vs Union of India (Bombay HC) reported in 2020 SCC Online Bom 1909. ii. Astute Valuers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay HC; Division Bench) reported in (2025) BHC-OS: 25376-DB). 8. In the case of Thought Blurb (supra) the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 52. We have one more reason to take such a view. As has rightly been declared by the Hon'ble Finance Minister and what is clearly deducible from the statement of object and reasons, the scheme is a onetime measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax as well as to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by a person eligible to make a declaration. The basic thrust of the scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigations centering around service tax and excise duty. Therefore the focus is to unload this baggage of pre-GST regime and allow business to move ahead. We are thus in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Vaishali Sharma v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 4763 of 2020, decided on 5-8-2020 that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning." 9. It is submitted that it has been clearly laid down that once a Discharge Certificate is issued, the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty for the period. 10. In the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the said date and therefore, the Scheme per se would not be applicable. He has however fairly submitted that there is no dispute to the aspect that the SVLDRS-1 was received, processed and the amount was determined to be Rs. 16,04,580/- which was paid by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 followed by issuance of a Discharge Certificate being SVLDRS-4. He has also fairly submitted that this aspect has not been dealt with in the order in original or even the affidavit filed in this case. As regards the appellate order dated 06.12.2022, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the expression used in the Notification dated 12.12.2019 is that it would be "desirable" to give tax payers the benefit for whom show cause notices were issued on or after 01.07.2019 and therefore, the same would not vest any enforceable right. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2022 passed in SLP 2070 of 2022 (M/s Yashi Constructions Vs Union of India & Ors.) and has submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to grant relief to the tax payer. 14. Rival submissions have been duly considered and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the crucial date an opportunity to avail its benefit. 16. Shri Keyal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has laid emphasis on the aspect of the use of the term "desirable" and has contended that the same would not give an enforceable right. Though such a submission may not be wholly incorrect, what is of significance in this case is that the application to get the benefit which was filed on 27.12.2019 was duly acknowledged and the matter was brought to a logical conclusion by issuance of a Discharge Certificate (SVLDRS-4) on 04.02.2020. The question therefore would arise as to whether the matter could have been reopened by passing the order in original on 16.02.2022. This Court has also noticed the said order in original has not even taken cognizance of the earlier development including the important developed of issuance of Discharge Certificate (SVLDRS-4) on 04.02.2020. In the opinion of this Court, the said aspect is a relevant factor which ought to have been taken into consideration and answered. That not being done, the order in original is not sustainable in law. 17. So far as the order passed in appeal is concerned, though it may not be strictly required to adjudicat....