The Madras High Court remanded back matter to Designated Committee to follow the set procedure under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), to afford the proper opportunity of hearing and pass Speaking Order.
Mr.J.Shankarraman, the counsel for the petitioner, M/s.Akshaya Aqua Farms challenged the order passed by the first respondent, the Designated Committee rejecting its application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme. The order is a one-liner, which simply says ‘Dear Taxpayer, your SVLDRS Form for the ARN No LD1112190001929 has been rejected.’ No reasons have been set out as to why the petitioner’s application is found to be unsuitable for the purpose of the Scheme.
Mr.Meganathan, the counsel for the respondent authority contended that the investigation in the matter is still ongoing and that the duty component has not been quantified. Reference in this regard is made to the definition of the term ‘quantified’ under Section 121(r) of the Scheme in terms of which a written communication intimating the duty demand would connote proper quantification for the purpose of the Scheme.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth observes that the doubt arises from the quantification in the statement as to whether the amount is a sum of Rs.98.00 lakhs or Rs.75.00 lakhs. This would hinge upon the status of the petitioner as an SSI unit or otherwise. Subject to a decision on this aspect, a quantification of duty in both instances has been made at the time of recording of statement seen in the light of Section 121(r) of the Scheme read with clause 10(g) of the Circular dated 27.08.2017.
“For the limited purpose of determining the status of the petitioner, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the Designated Committee, who shall complete the exercise by determining this aspect of the matter alone. Had the respondent afforded the proper opportunity as required in terms of Section 127 of the Scheme, heard the petitioner, and passed a speaking order, this litigation might well have been avoided altogether,” the order read.
The court noted that though the petitioner has proceeded on the basis that its liability to pay duty is an amount of Rs.75.00 lakhs, even that has not been paid.
Section 127 of the SVLDRS prescribes the procedure to be followed by the designated committed which is as follows:
Where the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant, as estimated by the designated committee, equals the amount declared by the declarant, then, the designated committee shall issue in electronic form, a statement, indicating the amount payable by the declarant, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the said declaration.
Where the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant, as estimated by the designated committee, exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then, the designated committee shall issue in electronic form, an estimate of the amount payable by the declarant within thirty days of the date of receipt of the declaration.
After the issue of the estimate under sub-section (2), the designated committee shall give an opportunity of being heard to the declarant, if he so desires, before issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: Provided that on sufficient cause being shown by the declarant, only one adjournment may be granted by the designated committee.
After hearing the declarant, a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by the declarant, shall be issued within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the declaration.
The declarant shall pay electronically through internet banking, the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of such statement.
Where the declarant has filed an appeal or reference or a reply to the show-cause notice against any order or notice giving rise to the tax dues, before the appellate forum, other than the Supreme Court or the High Court, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of any law for the time being in force, such appeal or reference or reply shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Where the declarant has filed a writ petition or appeal or reference before any High Court or the Supreme Court against any order in respect of the tax dues, the declarant shall file an application before such High Court or the Supreme Court for withdrawing such writ petition, appeal or reference and after withdrawal of such writ petition, appeal or reference with the leave of the Court, he shall furnish proof of such withdrawal to the designated committee, in such manner as may be prescribed, along with the proof of payment referred to in sub-section (5).
On payment of the amount indicated in the statement of the designated committee and production of proof of withdrawal of appeal, wherever applicable, the designated committee shall issue a discharge certificate in electronic form, within thirty days of the said payment and production of proof.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
