Ms Ers Services Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner made a mistake by leaving the pre-deposit column blank in their declaration form and could not blame the respondents for their own error. The respondents were legally obligated to verify the correctness of the declaration under Section 126(1) of the SVLDR Scheme, but not to complete an incomplete form. The Court also found that no rectification application was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated thirty days. While the petitioner cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay, the Court noted that the SVLDRS-1 form was filed on December 31, 2019, providing sufficient time for rectification before the pandemic's onset. The alleged rectification attempt on June 30, 2020, was significantly beyond the thirty-day period. Regarding the balance payment, the Court stated that since the bank and RBI were not parties to the proceedings, it could not reach a conclusion about their default or negligence. The petitioner was at liberty to initiate proceedings against them if permissible. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, MS ERS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition challenging an intimation letter dated September 14, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. This letter rejected the petitioner's application for rectification of a clerical error in their SVLDRS-1 declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme. The petitioner sought to rectify a blank 'pre-deposit' column in their declaration, where they intended to declare a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,38,91,813/-. The petitioner also sought directions to accept the balance payment of Rs. 10,19,821/- and issue a Discharge Certificate. The respondent rejected the application, stating that no pre-deposits were claimed in SVLDRS-1, SVLDRS-3 was issued on February 27, 2020, and the payment against SVLDRS-3 was not made by the due date of June 30, 2020, causing the application to lapse.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification of a clerical error in the SVLDRS-1 declaration, specifically the omission of the pre-deposit amount, contrary to Section 126(1) of the SVLDR Scheme and Rule 6(1) of the SVLDRS Rules? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to file a rectification application within the stipulated thirty days, or to deposit the balance amount by June 30, 2020, bars them from relief, despite the alleged clerical error and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a clerical error led to the 'pre-deposit' column being left blank, and the respondent committed an error by not correcting it. They argued that the respondent's actions contravened the intent of the SVLDRS to facilitate compliance without backlog, and that technical errors should not negate substantial rights. They also claimed that instructions were given to their bankers on June 30, 2020, for the balance payment, but the bank and RBI failed to execute it. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner made a mistake by leaving the pre-deposit column blank and could not blame the respondents for it. They stated that they were obliged to verify the declaration, not complete an incomplete form. Furthermore, no rectification application was filed within the thirty-day period, and the petitioner had sufficient time before the COVID-19 pandemic to rectify the mistake.