H. M. Constructions vs. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispurte Resolution) Scheme

Held

The Court held that the estimate made in Form SVLDRS-2 and the statement in Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the respondent authorities were to be set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to re-work the statement in SVLDRS-3 after determining the deposit amount over and above Rs. 20,27,249/- that had already been credited. For other deposits, the respondents were directed to verify them after considering the petitioner's submissions at Annexure-'E', affording an opportunity for a personal hearing for clarification, and then arriving at a fresh statement in SVLDRS-3. The Court clarified that the authorities could consider the claim for appropriation of deposits above Rs. 20,27,249/- in light of their objections, but this verification must be done bearing in mind the letter and spirit of the scheme and the objective of allowing all permissible lawful claims. If the appropriation sought by the petitioner in SVLDRS-1 was accepted, the authorities were to issue an appropriate discharge certificate as per SVLDRS-4. The Court noted that legal contentions common to a previously decided writ petition (W.P.No.11485/2020) were elucidated in that order and did not require detailed re-examination.

Facts

The petitioner, H.M. Constructions, sought to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, for a dispute arising from a show-cause notice dated October 19, 2012. The petitioner filed a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1, seeking adjustment of a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,13,79,328/-. The Designated Committee (respondent no. 1) issued an estimate in Form SVLDRS-2, acknowledging only Rs. 20,27,249/- as pre-deposit. The petitioner provided written submissions and explanations, asserting the full pre-deposit amount and clarifying discrepancies. However, the respondent issued a final statement in Form SVLDRS-3, reiterating the lower pre-deposit amount and stating the petitioner failed to submit evidence for deposits beyond Rs. 20,27,249/- and accepted that CENVAT reversals could not be taken as pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged these orders, seeking to quash the estimation and statement and direct the respondent to accept their declaration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee erred in not considering the full amount of pre-deposit claimed by the petitioner (Rs. 1,13,79,328/-) when issuing the estimate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and instead only acknowledging Rs. 20,27,249/-, thereby failing to give effect to the petitioner's declaration in Form SVLDRS-1? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to appropriately consider their request in Form SVLDRS-3 and that the matter required reconsideration in light of their submissions detailing the available pre-deposit amounts. They relied on their written submissions at Annexure-'E' and information obtained under the RTI Act. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that there were ambiguities regarding the petitioner's claim for appropriation. They argued that it needed to be ascertained whether the claimed pre-deposit amount was made specifically with respect to the dispute in the show-cause notice, that the pre-deposit had not been appropriated for any other demand, and that verification of factual assertions through challans was necessary. They also contended that the petitioner ought to have filed ST-3 returns regarding amounts standing to their credit and that there was ambiguity regarding CENVAT credit of Rs. 54,48,721/-.