TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is taken up for final disposal today. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Forms Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme) Rules, 2019 (for short, "the Rules") (SVLDRS)-3 dated 20.12.2019, issued by the Designated Authorities and rectified Form SVLDRS-3 dated 20.12.2019 (at Annexure H and I). Further direction has been sought directing the respondents to issue Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4, as contemplated under Section 123 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 (for short, "the Act"). Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner-Company is a private limited company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 for business of providing cleaning services to various cline....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btained the service tax registration for Ahmedabad branch under the category of cleaning services and they were providing cleaning services to their customers situated at Baroda and Surat and bills were issued for such amounts. 5. The petitioner-Company filed an appeal on 21.05.2009 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") challenging the Order-in-Original dated 26.02.2009 contesting penalties. The Tribunal granted the stay against the recovery of penalties vide order dated 26.03.2010 while considering that the entire amount of service tax with interest was deposited by the petitioner-Company. It appears that thereafter the petitioner-Company filed declaration in Form SVLDRS-01 under the Sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the entire amount and in fact, paid the service tax on 26.03.2007 to the extent of Rs. 46,70,314/-. He has submitted that after the petitioner-Company was granted the fresh registration for Ahmedabad premises on 26.03.2007, it had paid a tax of Rs. 25,00,000/-on 28.03.2007 and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 26,81,926/- was paid. He has referred to the challans issued of different amounts from 07.04.2007 to 30.07.2007. He has thus, submitted that the petitioner-Company deposited a total amount of Rs. 51,81,926/- during the investigation however, despite pointing out the same before the adjudicating authority under the scheme, the paid amount is not considered. He has referred to the provision of Section 126 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), they had claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 50,22,037/- along with interest, whereas no payment is shown to have been made under the head of "interest". Thus, according to him, the claim made by the petitioners at two different stages is contradictory and, in such circumstances, the same is not free from doubt. He has further submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that the amount in question was paid towards the case under consideration and the Designated Committee could not have allowed the said amount as a deposit made towards the case in question. It is urged that the impugned Forms SVLDRS-3 may not be set aside. 10. We have heard the....