Case Law Details
Magma Industries Limited Vs Designated Committee Office of Commissioner CGST & 2 Ors. (Allahabad High Court)
Clearly, a person against whom an enquiry, investigation or audit may be pending and whose ‘tax dues’ may not have been ‘quantified’, would remain ineligible to make a declaration on form SVLDRS-1. According to the revenue, for the purposes of Clause 123(c) of the Scheme, on 30.06.2019, the ‘tax dues’ against the petitioner were not ‘quantified’. Admittedly, prior to that date no communication whatsoever was issued by any Central Excise authority to the petitioner to communicate the ‘quantified’ amount of ‘tax dues’/duty amount payable.
However, there is no doubt that the ‘Panchnama’ document dated 10.02.2016 prepared by the Central Excise authorities, in writing, clearly mentioned the amount Rs. 2,18,516/- as the amount of duty short paid by the petitioner. Again, there can be no doubt that a director of the petitioner-company Dinesh Garg, in his statement recorded, in writing, on 13.05.2016 further admitted duty avoidance by the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 45,38,231/-. The total of these two admissions is Rs. 47,56,751/-. Section 121(r) does not, in any manner suggest and it therefore does not seek to limit the meaning of the phrase ‘written communication’ to be one written and issued by any Central Excise authority. Plainly, it refers to an amount of duty under any indirect tax enactment, reduced to writing. Once the amount of Rs. 45,38,231/- was thus reduced to writing before the Central Excise authority in an “enquiry or investigation” as defined under Section 121(m) of the Scheme and the petitioner did not dispute the same, the requirement of Section 121(r) read with Section 125(1)(e) read with 123(c) stood fulfilled.
In the present case, Section 133 of the Scheme is pari materia (in material parts) to Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under clause 10(g) of Circular issued by the CBIC under Section 133 of the Scheme, the CBIC had forsaken the power it wielded, to its own advantage, under the Scheme. Thus, it waived that advantage and relaxed the rigor of law – to make the Scheme more purposeful and successful by maximizing amicable/consented resolution of legacy disputes, under all indirect taxation enactments, in the context of the imminent enforcement of the G.S.T. Regime, at the relevant time. That being the emphasis laid by the CBIC, it clearly sought to maximize the number and quantum of settlements under the Scheme. That intent is self-apparent from a plain reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Circular. It needs no elaboration.
Thus, the CBIC has only clarified the meaning to be given to the word ‘quantified’ used under the Scheme – to include thereunder any duty liability admitted (in writing) by a person (during an enquiry or investigation) – as a ‘written communication’ spoken of under Section 121(r) of the Scheme. Also, Rs. 45,38,231/- is the exact amount ‘quantified’ while issuing the subsequent show-cause-notice dated 06.09.2019. While that notice may never be read as evidence of the ‘quantification’ made earlier since that show-cause-notice was issued after the cut-off date 30.06.2019, at the same time, the said document does indicate – other than the aforesaid ‘Panchnama’ and admission made by the petitioner there was no other material with the revenue authorities to create any other or further demand.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
