Case Law Details
Padmavathi Srinivasa Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Authority / power to revoke or cancel the Discharge Certificate on the premise that the material particulars furnished in the Discharge Certificate was false, lied with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Designated Committee.” Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise could not proceed until the Sabka Vishwas Discharge Certificate Revoked by Designated Committee.
Held: Assessee-a partnership firm involved in executing works contracts, received a show cause notice in November 2019 alleging non-filing of returns and non-payment of appropriate service tax. Subsequently, the SLVDRS was introduced by the Central government to resolve long-pending disputes. Assessee filed a declaration under the Scheme for the period from April 2014 to June 2017 and paid the disclosed tax dues. A Discharge Certificate was issued on 12.07.2020. Despite this, an order of adjudication was passed on 27.03.2021, rejecting assessee’s submission that adjudication should be dropped due to their participation in the SVLDRS. The issue before the Court was whether the adjudicating authority, i.e., the Central Excise Officer, had the authority to proceed with adjudication for a period and subject for which a Discharge Certificate had been issued under the SVLDRS. Assessee filed a declaration under the Scheme for the period from April 2014 to June 2017 and paid the disclosed tax dues. A Discharge Certificate was issued on 12.07.2020. Despite this, an order of adjudication was passed on 27.03.2021, rejecting assessee’s submission that adjudication should be dropped due to their participation in the SVLDRS. Assessee argued that the subsequent order of adjudication, lacking the revocation or cancellation of the Discharge Certificate issued under the SVLDRS by the Designated Committee—the body authorised to do so—lacked jurisdiction. It was held that once the Discharge Certificate was issued by the Designated Committee it was not open to proceed with adjudication. The authority / power to revoke or cancel the Discharge Certificate on the premise that the material particulars furnished in the Discharge Certificate was false, lied with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Designated Committee. To assume Adjudicating Authority / Central Excise Officers to have the power to revoke or cancel Discharge Certificate issued by the Designated Committee which might comprise of officers superior in rank to that of the Central Excise Officers carrying out adjudication would result in distortion of Administrative / Institutional Hierarchy. In the absence of the Discharge certificate being revoked / cancelled by the Designated Committee, adjudication by the Central Excise officers could result in plurality of orders on the same subject conflicting with each other, which ought to be avoided. Therefore, the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction was limited under the SVLDRS, and the power to revoke or cancel a Discharge Certificate lied exclusively with the Designated Committee. It was added that the adjudicating authority could not independently determine the falsity of particulars in the declaration. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order in Original No.11 & 12/2021 – JC dated 27.03.2021, for the period April 2014 to June 2017 on the premise that for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017 the petitioner was issued Discharge Certificate in Form No.SVLDRS-4 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “SVLDRS”) and thus the impugned order of adjudication made without revoking or cancelling the Discharge Certificate by the appropriate authority is without jurisdiction.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
