Only Superintendent or JAC Had Authority: Andhra Pradesh HC Rejects SVLDRS Application Over Unauthorized Notice [Read Order]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the rejection of M/s Diwakar Road Lines' application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), ruling that the petitioner relied on an unauthorized tax notice issued by an official without jurisdiction.

Diwakar Road Lines, a transport company operating air-conditioned and non-air-conditioned buses, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their SVLDRS application. The dispute arose after the Service Tax Department issued a notice on 30.05.2016, directing the petitioner to register and pay service tax on their operations.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

The petitioner responded on 01.05.2019, providing details of ticket bookings but later applied under the SVLDRS scheme, seeking to settle past tax liabilities. Petitioner’s application was rejected. He approached the High Court.

Read More: TDS & TCS Rate Changes from April 1, 2025: What You Need to Know

The petitioner’s counsel argued that they were eligible under SVLDRS since they had received a notice before the scheme’s cut-off date of 30.06.2019. They relied on a communication dated 28.05.2019 from the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anantapur-2 GST Range, which quantified their service tax liability at Rs. 66.93 lakhs.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that this communication met the scheme’s requirement for quantifying tax dues before the deadline.

The tax authorities' counsel countered that the 28.05.2019 notice was unauthorized and issued without jurisdiction. They argued that only the Superintendent or the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (JAC) of the Anantapur Division had the legal authority to issue tax liability notices. Since the notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anantapur-2 GST Range, who did not have jurisdiction, it was legally invalid.

Read More: Accounting Contract Scam: Mumbai CA Duped of ₹1.64 Crore by Fraudster Posing as Secretary

A bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath N. observed that the petitioner had failed to produce a valid show-cause notice quantifying tax dues before 30.06.2019, which was a necessary condition under SVLDRS.

The court observed that the 30.05.2016 notice did not specify an exact tax amount and merely directed the petitioner to register and pay applicable dues. The 28.05.2019 notice, which did quantify tax liability, was deemed unauthorized, as it was issued by an official who lacked jurisdiction.

GST on Real Estate & Works Contracts Click Here

The High Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner’s SVLDRS application was justified. It stated that fraudulent or unauthorized documents could not be used to claim benefits under the scheme and that allowing such claims would set a dangerous precedent. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was ineligible for relief under SVLDRS.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates