M/S.Pandyan Pyrotechnics vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pandyan Pyrotechnics, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise. The petitioner contended that they had been discharged from any liability under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, enacted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. Despite this discharge, the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind. The respondent, through their counsel, acknowledged that the petitioner had indeed been discharged from payment of any further duty, interest, or penalty, as evidenced by Form No. SVLDRS-4 issued under the aforementioned scheme. Therefore, the respondent conceded that the impugned order ought to be quashed.

Held

The Court held that the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2020 passed by the respondent was liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the respondent's counsel. The respondent acknowledged that the petitioner had been discharged from all liabilities, including duty, interest, and penalty, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, as confirmed by Form No. SVLDRS-4. Therefore, the continued existence of the impugned order, which sought to impose a liability despite the prior discharge, was deemed erroneous. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that once a taxpayer is discharged from liability under a settlement scheme like Sabka Vishwas, any subsequent order imposing a demand for the same settled liabilities is invalid and must be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2020 passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has already been discharged from all liabilities under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in total non-application of mind, as they had already availed the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and were discharged from all liabilities. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the petitioner had been discharged from payment of any further duty, interest, or penalty as per Form No. SVLDRS-4 issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Consequently, the respondent agreed that the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 should be quashed.