Kolkata Dynamic Services PVT LTD vs. The Learned Memer Of The Designated Committee And Ors

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's representation, disposed of the writ petition. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within one week from the date of the order before the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Kolkata (Respondent No. 3). The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide this fresh representation in accordance with law. This decision was to take into account relevant Circulars, Notifications, and the judgments the petitioner wished to rely upon. The Principal Commissioner was mandated to pass a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receiving the representation, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The Court did not decide on the validity of the original representation or the petitioner's claims regarding timely deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Kolkata Dynamic Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the inaction of respondent authorities in considering their representation dated June 7, 2021. This representation sought to resolve an issue regarding the payment of service tax under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner claimed to have made all possible attempts to deposit the tax amount before the Scheme's expiry. The respondents argued that the Scheme was no longer in existence, precluding any relief, and that the petitioner approached the authorities beyond the time limit. The petitioner relied on High Court decisions directing consideration of such requests even after the Scheme's expiry if representations were made promptly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation for payment of service tax under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite the Scheme's expiry, based on previous judicial pronouncements? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they had made all efforts to deposit the tax under the Scheme before its expiry and relied on decisions from the Gujarat, Bombay, and Delhi High Courts. These decisions, they argued, directed authorities to consider requests for accepting payments under the Scheme even after its expiry, provided representations were made promptly. The petitioner had annexed these decisions to their representation. Revenue's arguments: The respondent authorities submitted that the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was no longer in existence, and therefore, no relief could be granted. They also argued that the petitioner had approached the concerned authority beyond the prescribed time limit. The respondents further pointed out that the representation was made to the Joint Commissioner, whereas the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Kolkata South, was the appropriate authority to consider such matters.