Dismissed

Ms B N Dutta Represented through One of Its Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta v. the Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2023WPC/3619/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the non-sanction of adjustments under the SABKA VISHWAS LEGACY SCHEME, 2019. Relying on the closure of the scheme and categorical respondent replies regarding pre-deposit classifications, the Court declined to grant relief to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking adjustment and communication of liability under the SABKA VISHWAS LEGACY SCHEME, 2019, was rejected.

Ms B N Dutta Represented through One of Its Partner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(T) No. 3619 of 2020

¶3

M/s B.N. Dutta, a Partnership firm having its place of business

¶4

At Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East) represented through one of its

¶5

Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta R/o Sonari, Jamshedpur --- --- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶8

2.The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central

¶9

Excise, Division-V, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶10

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and

¶11

Central Excise, Division-V, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶12

--- --- Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

W.P.(T) No. 3671 of 2020

¶15

M/s A.K. Dutta and Company Private Limited having its registered office at Sonari, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East) represented through one of its Director Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta R/o Sonari, Jamshedpur --- --- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1.Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax & Central Excise,

¶18

Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶19

2.The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central

¶20

Excise, Division-V, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶21

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and

¶22

Central Excise, Division-V, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East)

¶23

--- --- Respondents

¶24

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶26

For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate

¶27

For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate (for CGST)

¶28

19/17.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The writ petitions were preferred with the following prayer:

¶30

a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing upon the Respondents to pass necessary orders of adjustment and grant sanction to the application made by the Petitioner under the SABKA VISHWAS LEGACY (DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019, which is pending for want of sanction/approval/adjustment , in terms of Scheme,2019, since Feb,2020, although reported on numerous occasion.

¶31

b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing upon the Respondents to communicate the Petitioner, the amount payable by the Petitioner in Form SVLDRS-4 after carrying out all the adjustments i.e., Amount calculated in terms of relief LESS amount already deposited / realized LESS predeposit, if any.

¶32

c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing upon the Respondents to grant four weeks time to the Petitioner to make the payment of residue from the date of communication of the liability in terms of Form SVLDRS-4 to the Petitioner.”

¶33

Affidavits were exchanged between the parties thereafter. During

¶34

course of the proceedings petitioners preferred I.A. No. (s) 10624/2022

¶35

-2-

¶36

and 10623/2022 in the respective writ petitions seeking an amendment to confine their cases for adjustment of the amount of interest of Rs. 27,72,582/- paid against service tax liability in connection with ARN No. LD0312190001127 in W.P (T) No. 3619/2020 and similar adjustment of Rs. 16,38,670/- deposited under the head ‘penalty’ which was not claimed earlier in W.P (T) No. 3671/2020.

¶37

Leaned counsel for the petitioners sought to press these applications in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of M/s Vassu Enterprises Vrs. Union of India & others ( W.P.(T) No. 2422 of 2020 & analogous case, judgment dated 04.08.2022).

¶38

Respondent CGST has filed replies to the respective I.A.s in both the writ petitions, the gist of which is incorporated in the order dated 10.01.2023, which reads as under:

¶39

“Supplementary counter affidavit to the Interlocutory application in both the writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the Respondent CGST has referred to the statements made at paragraph-5, 6 & 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed in W.P (T) No. 3619/2020 and submits that payment sought to be adjusted by the petitioner was made as pre-deposit in the light of CESTAT Application No. SERVICE TAX/75324/2019, date of filing 06.02.2019. It was filed against Order-in-Original No. 29/S.Tax/Addl.Commr/2017 dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Jamshedpur against show cause notice dated 20.06.2017 demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,37,43,701/- (including cess) for the period October 2014 to March 2016. A separate SVLDRS application bearing no. ARN No. LD0312190001127 has been filed by the petitioner for the same. It is submitted that payment made against the said ARN through two GAR-7 challans, annexed to the writ petition, cannot be adjusted against the payment made under SVLDRS ARN No. LD2712190004151. He has relied upon Section 123(2) of the Scheme of 2019.

¶40

2. Similarly, another supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in W.P (T) No. 3671/2020. Learned counsel for the Respondent CGST has referred to the statements made at paragraph-5, 6 & 7 and stated that the petitioner has made payment of Rs. 16,38,670/- by GAR-7 Challan (Annexure-A) as predeposit in the light of CESTAT Application No. SERVICE TAX/75323/2019, date of filing 06.02.2017. It was filed by the petitioner against Order-in2. Original No. 28/S. Tax/Addl.C0ommr/2017 dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Jamshedpur against show-cause notice dated 02.05.2017 demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,63,76,705/- (including cess) for the period October 2012 to September 2013. A separate SVLDRS application bearing ARN No. LD0312190001165 was filed by the petitioner for the same. However, payment of Rs. 16,38,670/- cannot be adjusted towards the pending application.

¶41

However, since petitioners are not represented today, matters are passed over for the day.”

¶42

-3-

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to bring the relief under the ratio rendered in the case of M/s Vassu Enterprises Vrs. Union of India (supra) in view of the categorical statements made by the respondents in their replies to the I.A.s and also the closure of the SVLDRS scheme on 30.06.2020. However, it is informed that appeal against one of the ARN of the both writ petitioners are pending before the learned CESTAT.

¶44

Be that as it may, it is open for the petitioners to pursue those appeals before the learned CESTAT. However, in view of the categorical statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit to the I.A.s. in both the writ petitions and the reasons recorded in the order dated 10.01.2023, no relief can be granted to the petitioners under the SVLDRS scheme, 2019 in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. I.A.s are disposed of.

¶46

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J.)

¶47

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶48

A.Mohanty

Ms B N Dutta Represented through One of Its Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta v. the Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms B N Dutta Represented through One of Its Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta v. the Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Akshay Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Namely Sri Rajender Sachdev Vs Comercial Taxes

Ms Singhbhum Technocast Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Namely Sri Sanjiv Kumar Vs Comercial Taxes

Ms Dhirajlal Velji Atha HUF through Its Authorized Signatory Nalini Kumar Vs the Union of India through Its Pr Secretary Ministry of Finance Deptt of Revenue

Ms Budhia Agencies Private Limited through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Ms the Republic Private Limited Represented through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Kaustubha Bhushan Giri Vs Anjali Giri