M/S Purple Exim Enterprises vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned certificate in Form SVLDRS-3 dated January 27, 2020, was a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking, and unreasoned certificate. The Court noted that while the remarks column of the certificate acknowledged that the petitioner had made certain payments, it failed to provide any reasons as to why these payments were not adjusted towards the petitioner's liability under the SVLDRS. This indicated a lack of application of mind by the respondents. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned certificate and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration. The respondents were directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with the law and the provisions of the SVLDRS, taking into account the payments already made by the petitioner and providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to submit documents/objections. The Court explicitly kept open all rival contentions of both parties on merits, including the contention regarding payments made for the period February 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Purple Exim Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the SVLDRS-3 certificate dated January 27, 2020, issued by the Designated Committee (respondents 1 and 2). This certificate demanded payment of Rs. 6,44,861.20. The petitioner argued that this amount was incorrect as it did not account for payments already made by them for the period of February 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013, which was covered under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The petitioner sought a revised certificate reflecting these prior payments. The respondents contended that the certificate was issued in accordance with the scheme and that no payments were indicated for the disputed period, thus justifying the non-adjustment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned certificate in Form SVLDRS-3 dated January 27, 2020, issued by the Designated Committee, is in accordance with the provisions of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, particularly concerning the adjustment of payments already made by the petitioner for the period February 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013, as required under Section 124 of the SVLDRS? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents committed an error of law, fact, and jurisdiction by failing to adjust the payments already made by them towards the liability computed under the SVLDRS. They relied on the fact that the SVLDRS was made applicable to the specified period and that the impugned certificate failed to consider these prior payments. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the impugned certificate was issued strictly in accordance with the provisions of the SVLDRS. They contended that the material on record did not indicate any payments made by the petitioner for the period February 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013, and therefore, they were justified in not adjusting any amount. They also submitted that the petitioner did not avail of opportunities given to them.