Karnataka High Court
M/S Bioneeds India (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Tax on 26 August, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15497 OF 2021 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S BIONEEDS INDIA (P) LTD.
DEVARAHOSAHALLY, SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562111
(REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. SHIVADASS, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NAGARAJA.M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BANGALORE NORTH-WEST GST COMMISSIONERATE
SOUTH WING, BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560051.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH-WEST GST COMMISSIONERATE
SOUTH WING, BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560051.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BANGALORE NORTH WEST GST COMMISSIONERATE
SOUTH WING, BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560051
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE BY WAY OF
LETTER DTD.08.5.2020 VIDE ANEXURE-A AND ETC.
2
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a. Quash the impugned order passed by the Designated Committee by way of letter C No.IV/16/854/2019 Adjn BNW/6593/2020 dated 08.05.2020 vide Annexure - A. b. Issue writ of mandamus or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to extend the benefit under the SVLDRS, 2019 based on the service tax liability quantified, admitted and already paid by the petitioner.
c. Grant such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents - revenue and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 pursuant to the introduction of the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution" Scheme, 2019 (for short ' the SVLDR scheme'), the petitioner submitted a declaration dated 28.12.2019 seeking benefit of waiver under the said SVLDR Scheme. After providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on 05.02.2020, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order / letter dated 08.05.2020 rejecting the application of the petitioner under SVLDR scheme, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The material on record discloses that a perusal of the impugned order / letter will indicate that the sole ground on which the application of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the SVLDR Scheme, was that the investigation initiated against the petitioner was not completed as on 30.06.2019 and consequently, petitioner was not eligible under the SVLDR Scheme. In this context, it is relevant to 4 state that as can be seen from the Notification dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in relation to the SVLDR scheme, respondents have clarified that at clause 10(g) of the said Circular that cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would be eligible under the SVLDR scheme. The said clause 10(g) of the Circular is extracted as hereunder:-
"10. Further, the following issues are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rules made thereunder:
(g) Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 are eligible under the Scheme. Section 2(r) defines "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It is clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc".
6. As can be seen from the aforesaid Circular that any duty / liability admitted by a person during enquiry, 5 investigation, audit / audit report etc., and any admission in this regard has to be treated and construed as "quantification" for the purpose of Section 123(c) of the SVLDR scheme. In this regard, a perusal of the answer given by the petitioner to question No.7 in the statement recorded by the respondents (Annexure-E dated 12.01.2018) will clearly indicate that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner with regard to total sales service tax liability and this admission is what is sought to be brought under and availed benefit of by the petitioner in his application under the SVLDR scheme. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in view of clause 10(g) of the aforesaid Circular dated 27.08.2019 coupled with Section 123(c) of the SVLDR Scheme, the admission made by the petitioner during the course of investigation on 12.01.2018 clearly amounts to quantification prior to 30.06.2019 for the purpose of availing the benefit of the SVLDR scheme and consequently, merely because the investigation had not been completed before 30.06.2019, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was 6 not entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR scheme and as such, the impugned order / letter deserves to be quashed.
7. A perusal of Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme will clearly indicate that the scheme was applicable even when an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the petitioner - assessee on or before 30.06.2019. in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the enquiry / investigation against the petitioner was pending as on 30.06.2019 even according to the respondents as can be seen from the impugned order / letter and consequently, on this ground also, the impugned letter / order deserves to be quashed and the mater remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law.
8. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned letter / communication / order at Annexure - A dated 08.05.2020 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh 7 bearing in mind the observations made in this order as well as the SVLDR Scheme and the circular dated 27.08.2019 in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV/SRL