Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fork Media Pvt. Ltd., challenged the impugned order (SVLDRS FORM 3) dated 27 January 2022 requiring payment of an additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/- under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The petitioner contended that after accounting for amounts already paid, including a CENVAT credit of Rs.3,27,81,964/- debited on 31 December 2019, no further amount was payable. The respondents argued that the petitioner made a false declaration in SVLDRS 1 by claiming pre-deposit of CENVAT credit before actual utilisation, and that the petitioner failed to produce supporting documents. The court noted that the petitioner's declaration included Rs.3,27,81,964/- as pre-deposit, but the return showing utilisation was filed on 31 December 2019, after the declaration date of 30 December 2019. Additionally, a letter dated 1 February 2019 indicated earlier utilisation. The court found the petitioner's shifting stands on the date of CENVAT credit utilisation to be self-serving and incorrect. The court held that the petitioner made an incorrect declaration and is not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, but the benefits already granted under the scheme were not disturbed.
Headnote
A) Tax Law - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - Section 124(2) of Finance Act, 1994 - Pre-deposit Deduction - The issue was whether the amount of Rs.3,27,81,964/- debited from CENVAT credit account could be deducted as pre-deposit under Section 124(2) - The court held that the petitioner's shifting stands on the date of utilisation of CENVAT credit and incorrect declaration disentitled it from equitable relief - The impugned order demanding additional amount was upheld (Paras 18-22).
B) Tax Law - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - Declaration Correctness - The petitioner made a false declaration in SVLDRS 1 by claiming pre-deposit of Rs.4,39,74,069/- including CENVAT credit of Rs.3,27,81,964/- before actual utilisation - The court held that such incorrect statements cannot be countenanced and the petitioner is not entitled to relief under extraordinary jurisdiction (Paras 18-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to deduction of Rs.3,27,81,964/- as pre-deposit under Section 124(2) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and whether the impugned order demanding additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/- is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order demanding additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/- is upheld. However, the benefits already granted to the petitioner under the scheme are not disturbed.
Law Points
- Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme
- 2019
- Section 124(2) of Finance Act
- 1994
- Pre-deposit deduction
- CENVAT credit
- Declaration correctness
- Equitable jurisdiction
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 96
WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2023
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Bharat Raichandani, Jasmine Dixit (for petitioner), J B Mishra, Abhishek Mishra (for respondents 1 to 4)
Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Assistant Commissioner CGST & C. Ex., Sabka Vishwas Designated Committee, Additional Assistant Director DGGI
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the impugned order under SVLDRS demanding additional payment.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order and demand for additional amount of Rs.1,25,23,051/-.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the impugned order miscalculated the amount payable under the SVLDRS by not deducting Rs.3,27,81,964/- as pre-deposit.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the matter was remanded by order dated 28 January 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 3135 of 2020 for failure of natural justice, with all contentions left open.
Issues
Whether the amount of Rs.3,27,81,964/- debited from CENVAT credit account qualifies as pre-deposit under Section 124(2) of the SVLDRS.
Whether the petitioner's declaration in SVLDRS 1 was correct and whether the petitioner is entitled to equitable relief.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The amount of Rs.3,27,81,964/- paid through CENVAT credit on 31 December 2019 should be deducted under Section 124(2) as it was paid after commencement of investigation. The impugned order is based on miscalculation.
Respondents: The petitioner made a false declaration in SVLDRS 1 by claiming pre-deposit of CENVAT credit before actual utilisation. The petitioner failed to produce supporting documents and took shifting stands on the date of utilisation.
Ratio Decidendi
A declarant under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme must make a correct and truthful declaration. Shifting stands and incorrect statements regarding the date of utilisation of CENVAT credit disentitle the declarant from equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The deduction under Section 124(2) is subject to the condition that the pre-deposit or deposit was actually paid before the declaration.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner's changing stands on the payment date through the CENVAT Credit Ledger is reason enough not to interfere with the impugned determination.
The advantage of speaking the truth is that one does not have to remember what was said in the past. A litigant with such an approach should not expect equitable relief by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a declaration under SVLDRS on 30 December 2019. The designated committee issued FORM 3 on 27 January 2022 demanding additional amount. The petitioner challenged this in Writ Petition (L) No. 3135 of 2020, which was remanded on 28 January 2021 for violation of natural justice. After remand, the impugned order was passed, leading to the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
