M/S. North East Engineering And Construction vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously dealt with a similar issue in WP(C) No. 1808/2020, wherein the matter was remanded back to the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of that order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.12.2019, which rejected the petitioner's application, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the application/declaration furnished by the petitioner. The authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of the scheme and its rules. If a fresh declaration was required, the petitioner was to be permitted to file one. The respondent authorities were directed to pass the required order within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. North East Engineering and Construction, was issued a Show Cause Notice on 20.10.2019 by Respondent No. 4, alleging non-compliance with the Finance Act, 1994, and determining a demand of Rs. 1,89,87,833/-. Despite a reply, the demand was confirmed at Rs. 1,79,48,390/- by the Commissioner, Service Tax, Guwahati, vide an Order-In-Original dated 14.03.2013. This amount, along with Rs. 5,00,000/- towards interest, was appropriated. Penalties of Rs. 1,79,48,390/- under Section 78 and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, were also imposed. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT, which granted a stay on penalty recovery. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, showing zero amount payable, but this was rejected by the Designated Committee for not showing the penalty amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, by the Designated Committee, on the ground that the amount of penalty imposed had not been shown in Form SVLDRS 1, was violative of the Rules framed for implementing the scheme? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their application was eligible under Section 125 of the Scheme and that the rejection was erroneous because the Scheme provided for a waiver of interest and penalty, leading to a zero amount payable. They contended that the rejection was violative of the scheme's rules and sought an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Contention: The respondent submitted that a co-ordinate bench had already disposed of a similar writ petition (WP(C) No. 1808/2020, Proloy Seal and Anr. vs. The Union of Indian and 3 Ors.) by remanding the matter back to the authorities concerned. The petitioner agreed with this approach.