Bombay High Court Allows SVLDR Scheme Benefits for Redemption Fine Waiver and Directs Acceptance of Withdrawn Application. The Court held that redemption fine is covered under the waiver provisions of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and that rejection on erroneous ground of withdrawal is invalid.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 231
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court dealt with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by a limited liability partnership firm and its partners challenging the rejection of their declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) for settlement of indirect tax disputes. The first declaration (No. LD2612190005231) pertained to a show cause notice dated 8th August 2007 demanding duty of Rs.4,97,618/-, redemption fine of Rs.21 lakh, and penalty of Rs.4,97,618/-. The firm had already settled the duty under the SVLDR Scheme for another show cause notice and sought waiver of penalty and redemption fine. The Revenue rejected the application on the ground that waiver of redemption fine is not covered under the Scheme. The Court analyzed Sections 121(d), 123, 124, and 129 of the SVLDR Scheme and held that 'tax dues' means 'amount of duty' which is central excise duty, not redemption fine. Once the applicant pays the prescribed percentage of central excise duty, Section 129 grants immunity from further duty, interest, or penalty, which includes redemption fine. The Court relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Jay Shree Industries v. Union of India, and its own decision in HP Adhesives Limited v. Union of India, as well as CBIC flyers and a Ministry of Finance press note clarifying that fine is waived. The Court quashed the rejection and directed issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 within four weeks. The second declaration (No. LD2612190005177) was rejected on the ground that the firm had requested withdrawal, but the Revenue admitted in its affidavit that the remark was erroneous and no withdrawal was made. The Court directed the Revenue to accept the application, issue Form SVLDRS-2, and upon payment, issue Form SVLDRS-4. The partners' declarations were consequential to the firm's, and the Court directed the Revenue to process them in accordance with the Scheme within four weeks.

Headnote

A) Indirect Tax - SVLDR Scheme - Waiver of Redemption Fine - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, Sections 121(d), 123, 124, 129 - The issue was whether redemption fine imposed under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is eligible for waiver under the SVLDR Scheme. The Court held that the Scheme requires payment of 'tax dues' defined as 'amount of duty' which means central excise duty, not redemption fine. Once the applicant pays the prescribed percentage of central excise duty, Section 129 grants immunity from further duty, interest, or penalty, which includes redemption fine. The Court relied on decisions of Gujarat High Court in Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Allahabad High Court in M/s. Jay Shree Industries v. Union of India, and its own decision in HP Adhesives Limited v. Union of India, as well as CBIC flyers and Ministry of Finance press note clarifying waiver of fine. (Paras 3.5-3.9)

B) Indirect Tax - SVLDR Scheme - Rejection on Erroneous Ground - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - The second declaration was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had requested withdrawal, but the Revenue admitted in affidavit that the remark was erroneous and no withdrawal was made. The Court directed the Revenue to accept the application and process it by issuing Form SVLDRS-2, followed by payment and issuance of final certificate. (Paras 4.1-4.4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether redemption fine is covered under the SVLDR Scheme for waiver, and whether the rejection of a declaration on the ground of withdrawal is valid when no withdrawal was made.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court quashed the rejection of declaration No. LD2612190005231 and directed issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 within four weeks. For declaration No. LD2612190005177, the Court directed acceptance, issuance of Form SVLDRS-2, payment within 30 days, and issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 within four weeks thereafter. The partners' declarations are to be processed accordingly within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme
  • 2019
  • waiver of redemption fine
  • tax dues definition
  • amount of duty
  • Section 121(d)
  • Section 123
  • Section 124
  • Section 129
  • Central Excise Act
  • 1944
  • Section 3
  • Section 34
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 262

WRIT PETITION NO.7653 OF 2021

2024-07-26

Jitendra Jain, J.

Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta and Mr. Mohit Raval i/b. PDS Legal for Petitioners. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Umesh Gupta and Mr. Rupesh Dubey for Respondents

Messrs Esbee Electrotech LLP Ors.

The Union Of India Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging rejection of declarations under SVLDR Scheme.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of rejection orders and direction to accept declarations and issue final certificates.

Filing Reason

Rejection of declarations on grounds that redemption fine waiver is not covered and that withdrawal was requested.

Previous Decisions

Rejection orders dated 2nd March 2020 and 26th December 2019.

Issues

Whether redemption fine is covered under the SVLDR Scheme for waiver. Whether rejection of declaration on ground of withdrawal is valid when no withdrawal was made.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that waiver of redemption fine is covered under SVLDR Scheme based on decisions of Gujarat, Allahabad, and Bombay High Courts, and CBIC flyers and press note. Respondents argued that waiver is only for penalty, not redemption fine, and relied on paragraph 10 of Synpol Products case.

Ratio Decidendi

Under the SVLDR Scheme, 'tax dues' means 'amount of duty' which is central excise duty, not redemption fine. Once the prescribed percentage of central excise duty is paid, Section 129 grants immunity from further duty, interest, or penalty, which includes redemption fine. Rejection on erroneous ground of withdrawal is invalid when no withdrawal was made.

Judgment Excerpts

Once the applicant pays the amount of duty as per Scheme then Section 129 provides that the applicant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the period covered in the declaration. The phrase 'amount of duty' is defined in Section 121(d) to mean 'the amount of central excise duty, the service tax and the cess payable under the indirect tax enactment'. Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply ... have accepted in paragraph 5 that the said remark has been erroneously made.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed declarations under SVLDR Scheme on 26th December 2019. Rejection orders were passed on 2nd March 2020 and 26th December 2019. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejections.

Acts & Sections

  • Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019: 121(c), 121(d), 123, 124, 129
  • Central Excise Act, 1944: 3, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Lokayukta Enquiry Against Daily Wage Employee for Lack of Jurisdiction. Daily Wage Junior Engineer Not a 'Public Servant' Under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Tender for Construction of Commercial Complex in Thane. Court holds that no public interest is involved as the petition is filed by business rivals to scuttle a tender process.