Case Law Details
Sabareesh Pallikere Vs Jurisdictional Designated Committee (Bombay High Court)
In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) would be around Rs.1.93 crores. While petitioner did not give the exact figure of total service tax dues, he nonetheless admitted such dues to be around Rs.1.93 crores which was subsequently enhanced in his statement dated 25.09.2019 to Rs.2,08,29,640.00. From a conjoint reading of section 121(r) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, circular of the Board dated 27.08.2019 and answers to question Nos. 3 and 45 of the Frequently Asked Questions, a view can legitimately be taken that the requirement under the SVLDRS, 2019 is admission of tax liability by the declarant during inquiry, investigation or audit report. It is not necessary that the figures on such admission should have mathematical precision or should be exactly the same as the subsequent quantification by the authorities in the form of show-cause notice etc. post 30.06.2019. The object of the scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut off date of 30.06.2019. The fact that there could be discrepancy in the figure of tax dues admitted by the person concerned prior to 30.06.2019 and subsequently quantified by the departmental authorities would not be material to determine eligibility in terms of the scheme under the category of inquiry, investigation or audit. What is relevant is admission of tax dues or duty liability by the declarant before the cut off date. Of course the figure or quantum admitted must have some resemblance to the actual dues. In our view, petitioner had fulfilled the said requirement and therefore he was eligible to make the declaration in terms of the scheme under the aforesaid category. Rejection of his declaration therefore on the ground of ineligibility is not justified.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Heard Mr. Devendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the designated committee i.e. respondent No.1 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner dated 24.12.2019 filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly “the scheme” hereinafter) and further seeks a direction to the said respondent to reconsider the declaration of the petitioner dated 24.12.2019 in terms of the scheme and grant the reliefs to the petitioner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
