Karnataka High Court
The Professional Couriers vs The Commissioner Of Central Tax ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15944
WP No. 25012 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.25012 OF 2023 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR V SRINATH, SON OF SHRI T BALACHANDRAN
AGED 62 YEARS,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 195,
THE PROFESSIONAL HOUSE, MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560055.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS-I)
4TH FLOOR, TTMC - BMTC BUILDING,
HAL AIRPORT ROAD, DOMMALURU
BENGALURU - 560071.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
MALATESH BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONERATE,
KC NO. 59, H M T BHAVAN, GANGA NAGARA,
Location: BENGALURU - 560032.
HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA OF CENTRAL TAX, NORTH DIVISION -4
NO 59, H M T BHAVAN, GANGA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15944
WP No. 25012 of 2023
QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-APPEAL (OIA) BEARING
NO.185/2023 CT DATED 15/09/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED
BY THE R1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief:
"Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/ to quashing impugned Order-in-Appeal (OIA) bearing A No.221/2022-23 A-II in OIA No. 185/2023 CT dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1."
2. Perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondents promulgated the scheme known as 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (for short "SVLDR Scheme") pursuant to which petitioner filed four different declarations as under:
Sl. Period Category No. 1 January 2013 to March 2016 Category 2 April 2016 to September 2016 Voluntary 3 October 2016 to March 2017 Arrears -3- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 4 October 2016 to March 2017 Arrears
3. In pursuance of the same, respondents determined the tax payable and issued Form SVLDRS-3 in favour of the petitioner for the period January 2013 to March 2016, October 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017, in pursuance of which petitioner made payment and the respondents issued Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 in favour of the petitioner. However, insofar as period from April 2016 to September 2016 is concerned, despite the respondents having issued Form SVLDRS-3 in favour of the petitioner and petitioner having made payment in this regard during January 2017 to May 2017 and petitioner seeking waiver from interest for delayed payment, respondents issued a show cause notice on 11.10.2021 demanding service tax in a sum of Rs.1,86,08,600/- for the aforesaid period i.e., April 2016 to September 2016.
4. Petitioner having submitted his reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent No.2 confirmed the demand by passing the impugned Order in Original dated 24.08.2022 which was confirmed by the respondent No.1-Appellate -4- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 Authority vide Appellate Order dated 15.09.2023, both of which are assailed in the present petition.
5. Under identical circumstances, in the case of M/s The Senate vs. The Designated Committee, SVLDRS, 2019 in W.P.No.9992/2022 Dated 15th September 2022, this Court held as under:
"3. The material on record discloses that pursuant to the promulgation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short "SVLDR Scheme"), petitioner submitted Form SVLDRS-1 to respondent No.1 on 16.11.2019 pursuant to which respondent No.1 issued Form SVLDRS-3 to the petitioner vide Annexure-G1 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,27,961/- towards full and final settlement under the SVLDR Scheme. Subsequently, the said payment was made by the petitioner on 27.12.2019, who addressed a communication dated 31.12.2019 to the respondent intimating respondent No.1 that the entire amount as demanded in Form SVLDRS-3 was paid by him as can be seen from the payment challans. Subsequently, on 08.09.2020, respondents addressed a communication to the petitioner informing him that the discharge in Form SVLDRS-4 could not be issued in favour of the petitioner on account of non- payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,49,27,961/- by the petitioner and that the same has to be paid by the petitioner immediately. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 23.09.2020 to the respondents -5- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 intimating them that the aforesaid amounts had already been paid by the petitioner through RTGS on 31.12.2019 within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 on 19.12.2018. Under these circumstances, the petitioner requested the respondents to issue discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 and close the matter. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite noticing the aforesaid facts and circumstances and referring to the payment made by the petitioner, which entitles him to issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 by the respondents, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 31.12.2021, which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.1,49,27,961/- to the respondents, who had accepted the entitlement of the petitioner under SVLDR Scheme. However, respondents had called upon the petitioner to make the said payment despite the same having already made and the details of the said payment being intimated to the respondents by the petitioner in his reply dated 23.09.2020. It is therefore clear that the respondents have accepted and acquiesced to the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and the petitioner having paid the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,49,27,961/- on 31.12.2019 within a period of 30 days from 02.12.2019 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 on which date Form SVLDRS-3 was issued, respondent No.2 clearly fell in error in issuing show-cause notice without considering or appreciating that the payment referred to without considering or appreciating or taking into account the said undisputed payment made by the petitioner. The impugned show-cause notice is clearly contrary to the undisputed to the facts and circumstances and consequently, upon petitioner making payment of the aforesaid amount on 31.12.2019 within the stipulated period of 30 days within 03.12.2019, the petitioner is clearly entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and consequently, petitioner is entitled for issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 in his favour. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents in this regard."
6. In the instant case also, pursuant to SVLDRS-3 issued by respondents to the petitioner on 13.12.2019, petitioner intimated the respondents that service tax had already been voluntarily paid for the period April 2016 to September 2016 during January 2017 to May 2017 as evidenced by challans produced along with the petition.
7. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to supra and the undisputed fact that payment demanded by the respondents had already been paid by the petitioner to the respondents, but had issued SVLDRS-3 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 in favour of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed.
8. In this context, respondents clearly committed an error in coming to the conclusion that payments had not been made by the petitioner in addition to incorrectly stating that payments already made cannot be reckoned or considered for the purpose of SVLDR Scheme which is incorrect especially in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to supra.
9. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Order vide Annexures-A and E deserve to be quashed and necessary direction deserves to be issued.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Orders at Annexures-A and E are hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of SVLDR Scheme bearing in mind the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:15944 WP No. 25012 of 2023 observations made in this order and the material on record produced by the petitioner in the present petition and in accordance with law and issue form SVLDR-4 in favour of the petitioner subject to other verification as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) In order to facilitate respondent No.1 to comply with this order as expeditiously as possible, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit a fresh representation along with all relevant documents to respondent No.1 within a period of one week from today when same shall be considered by respondent No.1 as stated supra.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4