This case involves the petitioner, challenging an order under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The dispute primarily revolved around the determination of the amount payable under the scheme and whether a CENVAT credit of ₹3,27,81,964 was correctly accounted for as a "pre-deposit."

1. Petitioner's Claim: The petitioner argued that the CENVAT credit amount should have been deducted as a pre-deposit while determining dues under SVLDRS.

2. Respondent's Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting the utilization of the credit within the relevant timeframe, and that the petitioner's inconsistent submissions weakened its case.

3. Court's Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that:

   • The petitioner failed to establish the utilization of CENVAT credit within the stipulated period.
   • Misstatements in the declaration and failure to produce supporting evidence justified the respondents’ position.

4. Key Legal Principle (Ratio): Relief under the SVLDRS depends on demonstrable evidence of payment or pre-deposit within the prescribed conditions. Unsupported claims or contradictory positions can result in dismissal.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction and Context

• The petitioner challenged an SVLDRS order demanding ₹1,25,23,051 in addition to claimed payments.
• SVLDRS was designed to resolve tax disputes and provide concessions.

2. Petitioner’s Arguments

• Asserted that ₹3,27,81,964 was paid via CENVAT credit during an ongoing investigation.
• Sought relief on the ground that this amount was wrongly excluded from the pre-deposit calculation under Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Respondent’s Defense

• Argued that the petitioner failed to establish the date and validity of the CENVAT credit utilization.
• Highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s declaration and submissions.

4. Court’s Findings

• The petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence to counter the respondent’s verification.
• The petitioner’s stance lacked clarity and credibility due to contradictory claims about the dates and amounts.

5. Conclusion and Dismissal

• The court upheld the respondent's decision, stating no interference was warranted.
• The petitioner’s approach and lack of candor negated their claim for relief.

Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:

   • Section 124(1): Conditions for relief.
   • Section 124(2): Deduction of pre-deposits during appellate proceedings or investigations.

2. Finance Act, 1994:

   • Key provisions outlining the framework for SVLDRS.

3. CENVAT Credit Rules:

   • Rules for utilization and declaration of CENVAT credit.

Subjects:

• Tax Dispute Resolution
• SVLDRS 2019
• CENVAT Credit
• Finance Act, 1994
• Tax Compliance