Case Law Details
ACNielsen Research Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner had an appeal pending before the Hon’ble CESTAT. The petitioner has deposited a sum for the said appeal. The petitioner availed benefit of SVLDR Scheme. It filed SVLDRS Form 1. Form 3 was issued. It paid the directed sum in time. However, revised Form 3 was issued. The petitioner prayed that already sum was paid, to no avail. To buy peace, the petitioner paid the said sum again in December, 2020. Benefit under the Scheme was rejected on the ground that payment was made beyond 30.06.2020. Hence, petition was filed.
The Hon’ble Court allowed the petition. It was held that rectified Form 3 was contrary to section 128 of the Scheme. It was issued beyond time. It also could not be issued as the section allows correction of clerical or typographical error. It does not allows re-examination. Holds rejection is contrary to the object of the Scheme. Follows judgment in the case of Thought Blurb. Allows petitioner to claim refund of the amount paid before CESTAT.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1 Petitioner is service provider whose records came to be audited for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. After investigation, Petitioner came to be issued a show cause notice alleging non-payment of service tax. Thereafter show cause notices were issued for subsequent period, i.e., 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Petitioner replied to each of the show causes notices.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
