M/S Veteran Facility Management Services PVT LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors

Held

The Court held that an inadvertent mistake in not stating the penalty amount in Form SVLDRS-1 is a curable mistake and does not disentitle the petitioner from the benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Court reasoned that the mistake was not made to claim an undue benefit, as the scheme itself might provide exemption even on penalty amounts, potentially leading to greater benefit if the penalty was declared. The ratio is that inadvertent omissions in declarations under such schemes, which do not result in undue advantage, should be allowed to be corrected. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an application for correction of the SVLDRS-1 form within 15 days of obtaining the order's certified copy. The respondent authorities are to pass a reasoned speaking order on this application within two months of its receipt.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Veteran Facility Management Services Pvt Ltd, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,25,03,527/- by the Joint Director, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati, via an order dated 18.10.2019. To avail benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioner submitted Form SVLDRS-1. However, inadvertently, the penalty amount was declared as '0' in the form. Consequently, their claim for benefits under the Scheme was rejected by an order dated 31.12.2019, citing the incorrect declaration as an "incorrect declaration". This writ petition challenges the rejection order.

Key Issues

1. Whether an inadvertent mistake in not correctly stating the penalty amount in Form SVLDRS-1 renders the declaration incorrect and disentitles the petitioner from the benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, specifically concerning the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, under which the scheme was incorporated? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the mistake in not stating the penalty amount was inadvertent and not a deliberate attempt to mislead or claim undue benefit. They contended that such a mistake should be considered curable. Revenue's contention: The revenue authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the declaration in SVLDRS-1 was incorrect due to the omission of the penalty amount, making it an "incorrect declaration".