Pro Interactive Services INDIA PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South & Anr.

Held

The Court directed that the present writ petition be treated as a representation by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was instructed to dispose of this representation on or before June 30, 2020. Crucially, the Court mandated that an opportunity of hearing be provided to an authorized representative of the petitioner on June 29, 2020, at 11:30 AM. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties were left open, indicating that the merits of the dispute were not decided in this order. The operative direction was to ensure a proper hearing before a final decision is made on the petitioner's declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The issue of whether the declarations were correctly rejected on merits was not decided, but the procedural lapse of not providing a hearing was addressed.

Facts

The petitioner, Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging communications dated February 13, 2020, and February 21, 2020, issued by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South & Anr. These communications rejected the petitioner's declarations filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, for waiver of interest and penalty for the period October 2013 to September 2016. The rejection was based on the ground that the declared liability did not match the liability shown in the returns, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that taxes were fully paid, and declarations for nil tax dues were made in accordance with a relevant circular. The petitioner also highlighted that declarations for a subsequent period (October 2016 to June 2017) were processed under identical circumstances after an oral hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, for waiver of interest and penalty for the period October 2013 to September 2016, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is valid, particularly when the petitioner claimed taxes were fully paid and declared nil tax dues in accordance with a circular? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they had filed declarations solely for the waiver of interest and penalty, as the principal taxes had already been paid. They contended that their declaration of nil tax dues was in line with the Circular dated September 25, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed out that under similar circumstances, their declarations for the period October 2016 to June 2017 were processed after an oral hearing, and they were directed to pay tax dues as per Form SVLDRS-3. They argued that as a single assessee with one Service Tax Registration Number, the respondents should have processed the declarations for the entire period from October 2013 to June 2017 cohesively, rather than in a disjointed manner. Respondents' contentions: The respondents did not object to the writ petition being treated as a representation to the respondent No. 2.