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.


Summary of Judgement

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.

The Judgement

Case Title: Bramhanand Kanojia Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 116

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1883 OF 2023

Date of Decision: 2024-12-11