M/S Saviton Metplast Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court accepted the revised calculation presented by the respondents in their affidavit dated 18.09.2023. The affidavit indicated that the total tax demand was Rs.90,13,834/-, with a tax relief of Rs.45,06,917/-. After accounting for Rs.10,30,774/- deposited during the investigation, the net amount payable by the petitioner under the SVLDRS Scheme was recalculated as Rs.34,76,143/-. Since the petitioner had already deposited Rs.39,21,428/-, which exceeded the revised payable amount, the Court directed the respondents to release the remaining amount to the petitioner. The Court's reasoning was based on the revised figures provided by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Gurugram, which resolved the dispute regarding the payable amount. The operative direction was for the respondents to refund the excess amount within two weeks. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application if any cause of action still survived.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saviton Metplast Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an order dated 24.02.2020 (SVLDRS-3) assessing duty amounting to Rs.39,21,428/- under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS), 2019. Initially, the amount due was Rs.90,13,834/-, with Rs.39,21,428/- already deposited by the petitioner. The respondents, however, reflected a payable amount of Rs.40,61,632/-. Following a court order on 12.04.2023, the respondents filed an affidavit on 18.09.2023, recalculating the payable amount under the SVLDRS Scheme after tax relief. The revised calculation showed a tax demand of Rs.90,13,834/-, a tax relief of Rs.45,06,917/-, and an amount deposited during investigation of Rs.10,30,774/-, resulting in a final payable amount of Rs.34,76,143/- under the scheme.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recalculation of the amount payable under the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019, as presented in the affidavit dated 18.09.2023, is correct and binding on the parties, considering the initial discrepancy in the payable amount reflected by the respondents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the initial assessment and demand were incorrect, leading to the present litigation. The subsequent recalculation by the respondents, which reduced the payable amount, supports the petitioner's position that the initial demand was erroneous. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their affidavit, presented a revised calculation of the tax dues under the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019, after applying the tax relief. They argued that this revised calculation accurately reflects the amount payable by the petitioner after considering the scheme's provisions and the deposits already made.