Cd Safety And Security Services LLP (Erst. Cd Safety And Security Services PVT. LTD. ) vs. The Principal Commissioner, Central And Excise And Central GST, Mumbai South And Anr

Held

The Court noted that after the parties agreed to a verification process for the Petitioner's claim regarding challans amounting to Rs.63,38,011/-, the Revenue subsequently communicated that challans totaling Rs.63,57,358/- had been verified and found to be in order. Consequently, both parties were in agreement that further adjudication of the petition was not required. The Court held that as a result of this verification, the Respondents were obligated to issue a fresh order in Form SVLDRS-3, specifying the service tax liability under the SVLDR Scheme after granting credit for the verified amount of Rs.63,57,358/-. The Respondents were also directed to provide four weeks' time to the Petitioner to make the balance payment. The petition was disposed of based on the statement made by the Respondents.

Facts

The Petitioner, CD Safety and Security Services LLP, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and an order dated 11/02/2020 passed by the Respondent, the Principal Commissioner, Central and Excise and Central GST, Mumbai South. The Petitioner sought to quash these actions and direct the Respondent to verify their claim for credit of pre-deposit amounting to Rs.63,38,011/-. The Petitioner also sought a fresh order under the SVLDR Scheme reflecting their liability after accounting for this pre-deposit. During the proceedings, the Court directed verification of the challans. Subsequently, the Revenue informed the Court that challans totaling Rs.63,57,358/- were verified and found to be in order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent authority failed to verify the Petitioner's claim regarding credit for pre-deposit as mandated by statute and governing circulars, thereby violating the Petitioner's rights? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the impugned order dated 11/02/2020, rejecting the Petitioner's claim of pre-deposit credit of Rs.63,38,011/-, was passed in violation of statutory provisions and circulars? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Respondent failed to verify the veracity of their claim for pre-deposit credit and that the impugned order was passed in violation of statutory provisions and circulars. They sought a direction to verify the challans and issue a fresh order under the SVLDR Scheme after giving credit for the pre-deposit. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, through their counsel, fairly stated that the challans could be produced by the Petitioner's advocate and verified by the concerned officer. They agreed to a venue for this verification.