Partly allowed

H. M. Constructions v. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispurte Resolution) Scheme

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2021WP/11472/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the estimation of pre-deposits and the subsequent statement issued by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The writ petition allowed issues regarding the appropriate amount of pre-deposit claim which required fresh verification after considering additional evidence and submissions from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned estimate in Form SVLDRS-2 and Statement in Form SVLDRS-3 were set aside. The respondent was directed to re-calculate and issue a fresh statement after considering the petitioner's additio

H. M. Constructions Vs Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11472/2020 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H. M. CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT H M GENEVA, HOUSE, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTHA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. H J SIWANI. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DESIGNATED COMMITTEE SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPURTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 032 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST BANGALURU NORTH COMMISIONERATE.

¶12

CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK,

¶13

¶14

NEW DELHI - 110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶15

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI B.S.VENKATA NARAYANA, CGC FOR R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ESTIMATION DATED 14.11.2019 IN FORM NO.SVLDRS-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 127 IN FORM SVLDRS-3 DATED 06.05.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present petition and has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the estimation in Form No.SVLDRS-2 dated 14.11.2019 and also the statement under Section 127 in Form SVLDRS-3 dated 06.05.2020 issued by the first respondent, and issuance of necessary direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondent no.1 to accept the declaration made by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner submits that a show-cause notice dated 19.10.2012 came to be issued, and in respect of the subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner has sought to avail of the benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("the Scheme", for short). The petitioner submits that necessary application was made in Form SVLDRS-1 seeking in such declaration filed by him, for adjustment of pre-deposit of Rs.1,13,79,328/-. The petitioner submits that under the estimate under Section 127 in SVLDRS-2 as made out by the respondent, the pre-deposit that was taken note for the purpose of adjudication was for a sum of Rs.20,27,249/-. It was also pointed out in the said estimate that in the event the petitioner had a difference of opinion as regards to the estimated amount payable, petitioner could avail the opportunity of personal hearing.

¶23

The petitioner by way of explanation by filing written submissions and by making a declaration under

¶24

¶25

SVLDRS-2A had asserted that the amount of pre-deposit as sought for by them was evidenced by the documents that were uploaded. The petitioner is also stated to have made out a written submission to the Joint Commissioner, Designated Committee (SVLDRS) as per the communication at Annexure-'E' detailing the amounts available as pre-deposit and also clarifying the discrepancies.

¶26

The petitioner submits that the respondent while making final statement under Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 r/w Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 in Form SVLDRS-3 (Annexure-'H') has reiterated its earlier position that the only amount available for adjudication as pre-deposit was Rs.20,27,249/-. In the remarks column, it is detailed as follows:

¶27

" The declarant has failed to submit any evidence towards deposit/payment or ST-3 returns as submitted during PH conducted on 06.03.2020. In the PH they have further accepted that CENVAT

¶28

¶29

reversals could not be taken as pre-deposit. Hence, SVLDRS-3 issued for Rs.66,38,697/-."

¶30

The petitioner submits that insofar as the petitioner

¶31

company is concerned, details were obtained under the RTI Act, copy of which is produced at Annexure-'J'. The petitioner would contend that consideration of petitioner's request in Form No.3 is not appropriate and the matter requires reconsideration in light of submission made at Annexure-'E'.

¶32

The learned counsel for respondents would submit that statement of objections have been filed and that at para 5 of the statement of objections, they have set out what according to them were certain ambiguities insofar as petitioner's claim for appropriation is concerned, in specific, it is pointed out that the question as to whether amount claimed as pre-deposit has been made with respect to the dispute, which is the subject matter of show-cause notice requires to be ascertained at their end, that the amount of pre-deposit has not been appropriated for any other

¶33

¶34

demand other than the demand reflected in the show-cause notice and that there have to be verification as to the factual assertions of the petitioner by looking into the challans of the petitioner.

¶35

It is further contended that the petitioner ought to

¶36

have filed ST-3 returns as regards the amounts standing to their credit.

¶37

It is pointed out that insofar as CENVET credit amount of Rs.54,48,721/-, there is some ambiguity as

¶38

detailed in para 7 of the statement of objections and the petitioner in response to the same submits that they are not claiming any adjustment of the aforestated amount stated to be CENVAT credit.

¶39

Heard both sides.

¶40

It is noticed that this court has disposed of W.P.No.11485/2020 on 17.02.2021 examining in detail the aspect relating to adjudication of pre-deposit and accordingly, no detailed order as regards to the legal

¶41

¶42

contentions advanced in common in the present petition as were raised in W.P.No.11485/2020 is required while observing that legal aspects have been elucidated in the said order.

¶43

What would remain is as to the consideration of petitioner's explanation under SVLDRS-2A as regards to the deposits which were not appropriated while issuing the estimate in SVLDRS-3 by the respondent authorities. The said aspect has to be reconsidered by the respondent authorities in terms of the observations made in W.P.No.11485/2020. It needs to be noted that insofar as the contention of the department that SVLDRS is time specific and cannot be extended, the same is adverted to at Para 19 of the order passed in W.P.No.11485/2020 referred to supra. As regards to the contention that petitioner ought to have claimed credit under ST-3 Returns, same has been considered in para 18 of the order, which may be taken note of.

¶44

¶45

Accordingly, while taking note of the observations made in W.P.No.11485/2020, the estimate made in Form SVLDRS-2 and 3 are set aside. The first respondent to re-work the statement in SVLDRS-3 after arriving at a conclusion regarding the deposit over and above the amount of Rs.20,27,249/- that has already been given credit as per the earlier SVLDRS-2 form, which is now set aside. Insofar as other deposits are concerned, the respondents to verify after taking note of the submissions at Annexure-'E' to the petition and affording an opportunity

¶46

of personal hearing for the purpose of clarification by the petitioner and then arrive at a fresh statement in SVLDRS-3.

¶47

Needless to state that it is open to the authorities to consider the claim for appropriation as regards deposits above Rs.20,27,249/- in light of their objections raised in para 5 of the statement of objections. However, it is clarified that while so doing, the authorities to take note that verification should be done bearing in mind the letter

¶48

¶49

and spirit of the scheme as well as the objective of allowing all permissible lawful claims. The authorities upon final determination of the extent of appropriation, if were to accept the appropriation as sought for by the petitioner in SVLDRS-1, to issue appropriate discharge certificate as per SVLDRS-4.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Np/-

H. M. Constructions v. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispurte Resolution) Scheme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. M. Constructions v. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispurte Resolution) Scheme

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

M/S Alva'S Education Foundation (R) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Ibm Sports Academy Vs Sri. N. Ramamurthy

B.L. Prabhakar Vs Scholar Alley Private Limited

Sri Anant Mandgi Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Deekshashree G Vs Sri. Manmohan v R

M/S Suma Oil Agencies Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes