Order Date – 15 May 2023

Parties: Hans Uttam Finance Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, Hans Uttam Finance Limited, filed a declaration in terms of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on 26.12.2019. The petitioner deposited the entire service tax and therefore, by virtue of the Scheme, no further amount was payable.
• On 27.12.2019, the petitioner sent a letter informing respondent no.2 that it had applied under the Scheme and had met the eligibility criteria to avail the benefits of the Scheme – waiver of the outstanding interest and penalty on service tax.
• On 02.03.2020, respondent no.1, rejected the petitioner’s above-mentioned declaration under the ground “others” with the remarks, “the AE branch has confirmed that the investigation has not been concluded and hence the demand has not been estimated or concluded on or before the stipulated date”.

Issue – 

• Whether the duty payable by the petitioner has been quantified in terms of Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 (the Scheme) prior to 30.06.2019?

Order – 

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the respondents had never disputed or doubted the statements submitted by the petitioner. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents had accepted the said statements. Respondent no.1 had not questioned the calculation of the service tax.
• It is also material to note that the impugned notice also proceeds on the basis of the dues as quantified by the petitioner. The respondents have calculated the amount of tax payable on the basis of the balance sheets of the petitioner as ₹41,46,688/-, which is materially similar to the computation as furnished by the petitioner (with the difference of ₹11/- only).
• Hence it was held that the tax dues had been quantified as required under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019.
• Further, the Scheme does not exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigations have not been concluded; it expressly includes taxpayers in respect of whom investigation, enquiry or audit is pending.
• The writ petition is allowed.