Topline Buildtech Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the Petitioner had written a unilateral letter on June 11, 2018, stating its service tax liability and interest, and enclosed a challan for part payment. The Respondent's letter dated August 8, 2019, pointed out that service tax liability was due and outstanding and asked the Petitioner to deposit the balance. The Court found that this communication did not indicate that the quantum of duty had been quantified or communicated by the Respondent to the Petitioner on or before June 30, 2019. Therefore, the rejection of the declaration on the stated ground was upheld, and the petition was found to be bereft of merit. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Topline Buildtech Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its Second Declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme by Respondent No. 4. The petitioner had an ongoing service tax dispute concerning work contract services. The petitioner claims to have deposited Rs. 10.5 Lakhs out of an admitted liability, which was later revised. The petitioner filed declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme on December 6, 2019, and December 26, 2019, both of which were rejected by Respondent No. 4 with the reason "Amount of dues was not quantified up to 30.06.2019". The petitioner also sought reconsideration and information under the RTI Act, but received no response. The investigation was under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's Second Declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme by Respondent No. 4, citing "Amount of dues was not quantified up to 30.06.2019", was justified, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that it had made substantial deposits towards its admitted service tax liability and filed declarations to settle the dispute. The rejection of the declarations on the ground of unquantified dues was arbitrary, especially since the petitioner had communicated its estimated liability. The petitioner sought an opportunity for a hearing and a reasoned order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or respondents regarding the justification for rejection. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position, as reflected in the communication dated August 8, 2019, was that the balance service tax liability was due and outstanding, and the quantum of duty had not been quantified or communicated by the Respondent to the Petitioner on or before June 30, 2019.