M/S No.1 World Wide Express PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court found no merit in the petitioner's submissions. It held that the SVLDRS application form (Form SVLDRS-1) itself indicated rejection on the ground of 'ineligibility' with remarks 'amount neither quantified nor communicated', thus the petitioner could not plead ignorance. Regarding the notice dated 20.11.2018, the Court held that this was not a quantification of demand by the respondents but a unilateral admission of liability by the petitioner. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme and Another, which held that 'quantified' means a written communication of the amount of duty payable, and a unilateral quantification by the petitioner does not render them eligible. The benefits of the scheme are available only where the Department quantifies the amount, not the assessee. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for the SVLDRS, and the reasoning for rejection by the respondent did not warrant interference. The challenge to the notice dated 20.11.2018 was also deemed not maintainable as the petitioner had statutory remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s No.1 World Wide Express Pvt Ltd, filed an application under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on 31.12.2019. The petitioner claims to have received no response from the respondent, except for an oral intimation in February 2020 that the application was rejected because no duty/tax liability had been calculated by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner was not supplied with a written order of rejection. The petitioner contended that a notice dated 20.11.2018 from the Assistant Commissioner had raised a demand of Rs. 87,88,387/- towards service tax liability and Rs. 1,34,25,218/- towards GST liability, excluding interest, thus indicating a 'quantified' demand. The respondent revenue contested this, arguing that the SVLDRS application form itself indicated rejection on grounds of ineligibility due to the amount not being quantified or communicated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's SVLDRS application was validly rejected based on the ground of 'ineligibility' due to the amount not being quantified or communicated, as indicated in the application form itself? 2. Whether the notice dated 20.11.2018, which raised a demand for service tax and GST liability, constituted a 'quantification' of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment, making the petitioner eligible for the SVLDRS? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice dated 20.11.2018 demonstrated a quantified demand against them, making them eligible for the SVLDRS. They relied on the fact that a demand was raised by the revenue. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the SVLDRS application form itself contained the grounds for rejection, including 'ineligibility' due to the amount neither being quantified nor communicated. They argued that the notice dated 20.11.2018 was a unilateral admission of liability by the petitioner, not a quantification by the department.