M/S Multi Tech Constructions vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam

Held

The Court held that Paragraph 9.3(i) of the Circular No.1053/2/2018-CX, dated 10.03.2017, would not come in the way of the petitioner availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Court found sufficient force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the circular did not debar the petitioner from taking advantage of the scheme. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to point out any valid reasons for declaring Paragraph 9.3(i) of the circular as invalid and illegal. Therefore, the Court found no valid reason to entertain the petitioner's request and dismissed the Writ Petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner challenged Paragraph 9.3(i) of Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX, dated 10.03.2017, and sought a direction for the respondent to pass a consequential order pursuant to a CESTAT order dated 07.01.2019, before the closure of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The original order dated 25.03.2011 demanded service tax, interest, and penalties totaling Rs. 78,87,108/- for Maintenance or Repair Services and Commissioning & Installation Services, and Rs. 43,596/- for Goods Transport services, for various periods between 2004-05 and 2008-09, under Sections 73(1), 75, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT had remanded certain claims, allowed others, and dismissed some. The petitioner represented to the Commissioner on 25.11.2019 for a consequential order. The respondent's counter affidavit stated that the Sabka Vishwas Scheme was applicable and the petitioner could have opted for settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether Paragraph 9.3(i) of Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX, dated 10.03.2017, is invalid and illegal, thereby preventing the petitioner from availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, for the dispute remanded by the CESTAT? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the said circular, implying it created an impediment to their participation in the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner's primary goal was to obtain a consequential order from the adjudicating authority before the scheme's closure. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the Sabka Vishwas Scheme was applicable to the petitioner, as the case was remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority and was deemed as a Show Cause Notice pending adjudication. They contended that the pendency of appeals before the High Court (CEA Nos. 63 and 79 of 2017) and the transfer of the case to the 'Call Book' list, as per Paragraph 9.3(i) of the aforementioned circular, did not debar the petitioner from applying under the scheme. They further submitted that the petitioner failed to point out any valid reasons for declaring the circular invalid.