M/S. S.D. Arun Associates vs. Designated Committee

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Revenue, in its counter-affidavit, conceded that the petitioner's case was correct and that the petitioner was not required to pay the tax that triggered the dispute. This admission by the respondents resolved the core issue regarding the incorrect calculation of tax relief in Form SVLDRS-3. The Court found no disputation or disagreement between the parties on this point. Consequently, the Court directed the first respondent (Designated Committee) to issue a discharge certificate (Form SVLDRS-4) as sought by the petitioner, either manually or electronically, within eight weeks from the date of the order, i.e., on or before January 21, 2022. The Court also appreciated the fair approach taken by the learned Revenue counsel and the respondents. The interim stay on proceedings before the second respondent was vacated as the matter was resolved.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S.D. Arun Associates, filed a writ petition challenging Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The petitioner sought to quash the impugned form and direct the respondent to issue a fresh Form SVLDRS-3 considering payments already made, and subsequently issue a Discharge Certificate (Form SVLDRS-4). The SVLDRS-2 form indicated a tax due of INR 29,94,239/- and an amount already paid of INR 19,19,911/-, with the balance shown as NIL. However, the tax relief under the scheme was incorrectly calculated, leading to an erroneous assertion of a 30% tax balance in Form SVLDRS-3. The petitioner contended this was an inadvertent error.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee erred in calculating the tax relief under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019, as reflected in Form SVLDRS-3, thereby incorrectly showing a remaining tax balance? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the SVLDRS-2 form correctly reflected the amount paid (INR 19,19,911/-) and that the subsequent SVLDRS-3 form contained an error in calculating the tax relief. Specifically, the petitioner contended that instead of showing a 70% tax relief on the payable tax (INR 20,95,967/-), an incorrect amount of INR 10,74,328/- was mentioned, leading to an erroneous conclusion of a 30% tax balance. The petitioner characterized this as an inadvertent technical, technological, or secretarial error. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through its counter-affidavit, conceded that the petitioner's case was correct and that the petitioner was not required to pay the disputed tax. This indicated an agreement with the petitioner's assertion of an error in the calculation of tax relief.