Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others (Bombay High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether in SVLDR scheme we need to show the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the original order?
High Court states that, the objective of the scheme, in a case of this nature, a reasonable and pragmatic approach has to be adopted so that a declarant can avail the benefits of the scheme. A declarant who seeks benefit under the scheme cannot be put in a worse off condition than he was before making declaration under the scheme. That would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. The amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the order in original passed on remand would be the tax dues under the scheme and petitioners should pay the tax dues on the basis of the scaled down figures and not on the amount demanded in the show cause-cum-demand notice.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Subject matter and reliefs sought for in the three writ petitions being identical, those were heard together on 20.10.2020 and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Heard Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. J. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, to substitute the estimated amount payable as mentioned in forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 with the tax dues less tax relief amounts mentioned in the applications (declarations) filed by the petitioners in form SVLDRS-1 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
4. Short point for consideration in all the three writ petitions is what would be the amount of tax dues in respect of the petitioners? Whether it would be the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the order in original which amount has been accepted by the department though the order in original has been set aside by the appellate forum?
5. For the sake of convenience we take up the facts and pleadings in Writ Petition No.818 of 2020 wherein the relevant figures in respect of the other two writ petitions are also mentioned.
6. Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Malad (West), Mumbai.
7. The three petitioners were issued show cause-cum-demand notice dated 17.01.1992 from the office of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II on the allegation that petitioners had contravened provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the show cause-cum-demand notice the amounts stated to be due against each of the three petitioners were mentioned as under:-
