Peoplelogic Business Solutions Private Limited Vs the Designated Committee

PEOPLELOGIC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) 1^ST FLOOR, WINGS OF EAGLES, S.S.COMMERCIAL ESTATE NAGVARAPALYA, C.V. RAMANNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 093. (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. JOHN PUTHENPURAIKEL, S/O PUTHENPURAIKEL SAMUEL JOHN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIDYA SHANKAR S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, BANGALORE EAST COMMISSIONERATE, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE, BANGALORE EAST, TTMC BMTC BUILDING, DIVISION 5, 2^ND FLOOR, DOMMALURU, BANGALORE – 560 071.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ANTI EVASION, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE, BANGALORE EAST, TTMC BMTC BUILDING, DIVISION 5, 2^ND FLOOR, DOMMALURU, BANGALORE - 560 071.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:43647 WP No. 21910 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BANGALORE EAST, TTMC BMTC BUILDING, DIVISION 5, 2^ND FLOOR, DOMMALURU, BANGALORE – 560 071.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. AKASH.B.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO FORTHWITH ACCEPT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 15,79,821/- TOWARDS THE PETITIONERS SERVICE TAX DUES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2016-17 AND 2017-18 AS PAYMENT MADE IN SATISFACTION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX PAYABLE BY IT IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE SCHEME AND TO CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITIONERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE SCHEME BEARING DECLARATION NO. LD1201200000458 IN FORM NO. SVLDRS-3 DATED 12/01/2020 FOR A SUM OF RS. 15,79,821/- (ANNEXURE-D) TOWARDS THE ARREARS OF SERVICE TAX AND THUS FORTHWITH ISSUE THE CORRESPONDING DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE IN FORM SVLDRS-4 THEREBY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER OF THE REMAINING STATUTORY LIABILITIES PAYABLE BY IT UNDER THE SERVICE TAX ACT FOR THE TAX PERIODS COVERED IN THE SAID DECLARATIONS, RESULTING TO QUASHING OF IMPUGNED SCNS DATED (A) 24/06/2020, ANNX-A BEARING DIN. 20210657YT0000999DFF, ISSUED BY THE R2 AND (B) 21/10/2021, BEARING DIN 20211057YT00006666AOF, ANNX-B ISSUED BY THE R3.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶28

“ a) Issue an appropriate Writ directing the 1^st Respondent to forthwith accept the payment of Rs.15,79,821/-towards the Petitioner's Service Tax dues for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18 as payment made in satisfaction of the total amount of service tax payable by it in order to avail the scheme and to consequently allow the

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:43647 WP No. 21910 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Petitioner's declarations under the Scheme bearing declaration no. LD1201200000458 In Form No. SVLDRS-3 dated 12/01/2020 for a sum of Rs.15,79,821/- (ANNEXURED) towards the arrears of service tax and thus forthwith issue the corresponding discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 thereby discharging the Petitioner of the remaining statutory liabilities payable by it under the Service Tax Act for the tax periods covered in the said declarations, impugned SCN'S dated: 24/06/2020,Annexure-A bearing DIN: 20210657YT0000999DFF, issued by the Respondent No.2 and (b) 21/10/2021, bearing DIN 20211057YT0000666ADF, Annexure-B issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶33

(b) Pass such other Order or Orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶35

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that pursuant to the respondent No.1 issuing SVLDRS Form – 3 in favour of the petitioner mentioning the balance amounts payable by the petitioner in terms of Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43647 WP No. 21910 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Scheme, 2019 (for short, ‘the said Scheme’), the petitioner made payment on 30.06.2020 within the prescribed period. It is further borne out from the material on record that the said amount which was debited from the petitioner’s account on 30.06.2020 was credited back to the petitioner’s account on 01.07.2020 due to technical glitches which was also acknowledged by the petitioner’s banker. Thereafter, the respondents issued two show-cause notices at Annexures-A and B alleging that the petitioner failed to make the payment as indicated in the statement Form SVLDRS-3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though it is repeatedly requesting the respondents by filing replies dated 01.07.2021 and 15.11.2021 to the aforesaid show-cause notices respectively seeking the respondents to allow the petitioner’s declarations under the said Scheme and issue SVLDRS Form – 4 (Discharge Certificate) in favour of the petitioner in this regard, respondents are not taking any steps and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43647 WP No. 21910 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an undisputed fact that vide Gazette Notification No.1/2020 dated 14.05.2020, the Central Government extended the final date of making payment under the SVLDR Scheme upto 30.06.2020. In this context, a perusal of the material on record will clearly indicate that the petitioner had made the payment on 30.06.2020 itself. However, merely because the said amount paid by the petitioner on 30.06.2020 itself, the same was credited back to the petitioner’s account on 01.07.2020 due to technical glitches, the said technical error not being attributable to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not made the payment within the prescribed period and would therefore not be entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme, particularly when there was no default on the part of the petitioner who had undisputedly made the payment on 30.06.2020 within the prescribed period.

¶44

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that necessary directions are to be issued to the concerned respondents to accept the payment made by the petitioner on 30.06.2020 and grant him the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43647 WP No. 21910 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

issue Discharge Certificate in SVLDR Form – 4 within a stipulated time frame.

¶49

7. In the result, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶52

(ii) The concerned respondents are hereby directed to

¶53

provide the petitioner an opportunity for making payment of the amount as indicated in the statement Form SVLDRS-3.

¶54

(iii) If such a payment is made by the petitioner, the

¶55

respondents are directed to accept the payment made by the petitioner as if the same was made on or before 30.06.2020 and grant him the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and issue Discharge Certificates in SVLDR Form – 4 and do all such other acts, deeds and things including issuing other documents, etc.,

¶56

in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at

¶57

any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶58

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶59

Srl.

Peoplelogic Business Solutions Private Limited v. the Designated Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peoplelogic Business Solutions Private Limited v. the Designated Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Tmk Traders Vs Union of India

Sri. Subbanan Hosakote Shamar Ao Vs Assessing Officer

B S Burraq Alumin Alloys Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Kempaiah Muniraju Vs National E-Assessment Centre

M/S Orkla India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax.

Ramakrishna Tapovan Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)