Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. On 17.03.2020, petitioner was served with an estimate in Form No.SVLDRS-2 wherein the pre-deposit paid by the petitioner was shown at only Rs.1,11,25,000.00, thereby estimating the amount payable by the petitioner at Rs.2,89,14,033.00 (Rs.4,00,39,033.00 less Rs.1,11,25,000.00). In the process, CENVAT credit of the petitioner amounting to Rs.3,28,49,069.00 was excluded from the pre-deposit amount. It was mentioned that if the declarant did not agree with the estimated amount payable as determined by the designated committee, it should appear for personal hearing before the designated committee on 19.03.2020 to explain the reasons therefor. In the remarks column, it was mentioned that DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit in its verification report had WPL3135_20.doc stated that CENVAT documents were not yet verified as on 30.06.2019, the cut off date under the scheme.

15. In view of imposition of lock-down, petitioner could not appear in the personal hearing on 30.03.2020.

16. While the lock-down continued, petitioner was surprised to receive Form No.SVLDRS-3 from respondent No.4 disallowing WPL3135_20.doc payment of CENVAT credit as pre-deposit by confining the pre-deposit to the cash payment of Rs.1,11,25,000.00 only and consequently quantifying the amount payable by the petitioner at Rs.2,89,14,033.00. This was done without granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner subsequent to 30.03.2020 on which date the scheduled personal hearing was not possible because of the lock-down. Form No.SVLDRS-3 was received by the petitioner on 05.05.2020.

20.1. Before issuing Form SVLDRS-3, designated committee had granted opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner vide SVLDRS- 2 dated 17.03.2020 and fixed personal hearing on 19.03.2020. However, WPL3135_20.doc petitioner had sought for an adjournment vide SVLDRS-2A. Accepting the request of the petitioner, designated committee adjourned the personal hearing to 30.03.2020. It is stated that petitioner neither attended the personal hearing on the adjourned date nor uploaded its supporting documents. Thus, petitioner did not disclose how it had taken CENVAT credit. Therefore, designated committee issued SVLDRS-3 on 05.05.2020 on the basis of the available record.

WPL3135_20.doc 25.4. As per sub-section (4), after hearing the declarant, a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by the declarant shall be issued within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the declaration.

26. In exercise of powers under section 132 of the Act, central government has framed a set of rules called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (briefly 'the Rules' hereinafter). Rule 6 deals with verification by designated committee and issue of estimate etc. As per sub-rule (3), where the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant exceeds the amount declared by the declarant then the designated committee shall issue electronically within thirty days of the date of receipt of the declaration in Form SVLDRS-2 an estimate of the amount payable by the declarant along with a notice of opportunity of personal hearing. Sub-rule (4) says that if the declarant wants to indicate agreement or disagreement with the estimate referred to in sub-rule (3) or wants to make written submissions or waives personal hearing or seeks an adjournment, he shall file electronically Form SVLDRS-2A indicating the same. As per the proviso, if no such agreement or disagreement is indicated till the date of personal hearing and the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing, the designated committee shall decide the matter based on available record. As per sub-rule (5), on receipt of a request for adjournment under sub-rule (4), the designated committee may grant the same electronically in Form SVLDRS-2B. As per the proviso, if the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing after adjournment, the designated committee shall decide the matter based on available record. However, sub-rule (6) deals with a situation requiring correction of arithmetical error or clerical error apparent on the face of the record by the designated committee on such error being pointed out by the declarant or suo motu.