Rejection of SVLDRS Application Quashed: High Court Orders Re-calculation and Acceptance of Declaration. Bombay High Court sets aside the rejection of SVLDR Scheme application, emphasizing eligibility and recalibration of duty liability.


CASE NOTE & SUMMARY

Nature of Petition (Para 3):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging rejection of SVLDR Scheme declarations due to alleged non-quantification of duty before 30 June 2019.

Background (Paras 4-7):

  • Summons Issued (28 June 2018): Approximate service tax liability of ₹21.70 lakhs admitted by Petitioner.
  • Tax Payments Made: ₹13 lakhs paid initially, later updated to ₹23.73 lakhs (15 April 2019).
  • SVLDRS Declarations: Applications under “investigation, enquiry, or audit” category rejected twice due to alleged non-quantification before 30 June 2019.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Paras 8-9):

  • Duty was quantified in the statement recorded on 28 June 2018.
  • Petitioner was willing to rectify any discrepancies and pay ₹28,72,603/- with interest.

Respondents’ Position (Para 9):

  • Argued duty was quantified post-30 June 2019 in a show-cause notice.
  • Conceded court precedents favoring the Petitioner’s position.

High Court's Analysis (Paras 10-13):

  • Quantification: Petitioner’s admission of liability on 28 June 2018 amounted to quantification.
  • Disqualification Provision (Section 125(1)(e)): Does not apply where quantification occurred before 30 June 2019.

Rectification under Section 126 (Paras 14-15):

  • Authorities could have corrected the declaration figures instead of outright rejection.
  • Court upheld Petitioner’s willingness to rectify discrepancies and pay interest.

Acts and Sections Discussed

  1. Finance Act, 1994
    • Section 83: Issuance of summons for tax inquiries.
  2. SVLDR Scheme, 2019:
    • Section 125(1)(e): Eligibility criteria for quantification before 30 June 2019.
    • Section 126: Power to verify and adjust declarations.
    • Section 127: Issuance of final certificates.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • Admission of liability in a recorded statement suffices as “quantification” under the SVLDR Scheme.
  • Authorities must facilitate rectification instead of dismissing declarations.
  • Courts prioritize the Scheme’s purpose to resolve disputes amicably over procedural rigidity.

Subjects:

Taxation, SVLDR Scheme, Judicial Interpretation of Eligibility.

Tax Dispute Resolution, GST Compliance, Writ Petition, High Court Judgment, Quantification of Duty.

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 116

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1883 OF 2023

Date of Decision: 2024-12-11

Case Title: Bramhanand Kanojia Versus The Union of India

Before Judge: M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

Advocate(s): Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for Petitioner. Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad and Mr. Akash Singh for Respondents.

Appellant: Bramhanand Kanojia

Respondent: The Union of India