The Bombay High Court dismissed the rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR) and commented that the petitioner, Avenue Supermarkets Ltd, is a victim of the lacuna in software governing the SVLDR scheme.
The Petitioner has challenged the rejection of Petitioner’s application / declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has supermarket outlets.
The Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) visited the office of the Petitioner and seized various documents and record. Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner in respect of service tax dues.
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was introduced by the Government through the Finance Act of 2019 for settlement of legacy disputes. There are various categories of persons through which a person can file a declaration to avail the benefit of the Scheme. The Petitioner, accordingly, filed a declaration under SVLDRS-1 which was not accepted.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that with effect from 29 September 2016, the Petitioner had duly changed its Centralized Service Tax Registration Certificate with an application filed under Form ST-2 and had changed the corporate address to Thane Corporate Office.
The Counsel also submitted that it was not possible for the Petitioner to login to select Navi Mumbai Commissionerate using the registration number which was connected with Thane Commissionerate and that in view of this technical lacuna, the Petitioner’s application was rejected and the Respondents ought to have redirected the application of the Petitioner to the correct Commissionerate.
The Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Petitioner should have re-registered himself again at Navi Mumbai, if he wanted to get the benefit of the scheme.
The Court of Justices Abhay Ahuja and Nitin Jamdar observed that “The Petitioner is a victim of the lacuna in the software governing the SVLDR scheme where the Petitioner could not have selected the option of Navi Mumbai Commissionerate which was earlier Commissionerate of the Petitioner.”
The Bench concluded by observing that “This being the position, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to get his application / declaration SVLDRS-1 to be examined on merits as to whether the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit of the scheme.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
