Gauhati High Court
M/S Veteran Facility Management ... vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 31 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010172502020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5272/2020
M/S VETERAN FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD
A PVT. LTD. CO. INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (READ WITH COMPANIES ACT, 2013) HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.10, 5TH BYELANE, R.G. BARUAH ROAD (EAST),
GUWAHATI-781021, ASSAM REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SRI DIPAK
KR. CHAKRABARTY.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF
REVENUE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPTT. OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110001.
3:DESIGNATED COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING THROUGH
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
4:CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/4
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
GUWAHATI
GST BHAVAN
KEDAR ROAD
GUWAHATI-781001
ASSAM.
5:THE ASSTT. COMMISSTIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
6:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (CBIC)
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPTT. OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
NORTH BLOCK
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI-110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M L GOPE
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 31-03-2021
Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal,
learned ASGI appearing for the respondents in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and
the authorities under the GST.
2. The petitioner in course of their transaction were imposed a penalty of Rs.1,25,03,527/- as per
the order dated 18.10.2019 of the Joint Director, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati. The
petitioners in order to avail the benefits under a scheme called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( in short Scheme 2019) had submitted their particulars in the prescribed
SVLDRS-1form. Inadvertently while submitting the form, the aforesaid penalty imposed on the
petitioner was not stated and in turn in the relevant column it was stated that the penalty imposed upon
the petitioner was '0'.
Page No.# 3/4
3. In view of such inadvertent mistake by the petitioner made in the SVLDRS-1 form their claim
for the benefit under the Scheme of 2019 stood rejected by the order dated 31.12.2019. By the said
order it was stated that the reason for rejection was that the amount of penalty had not been stated in the
SVLDRS-1 form which makes it an incorrect declaration.
4. The issue as to whether an inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not
correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form, it has been decided by this Court in its judgment dated
04.05.2020 in WP(C)No.2149/2020. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted as below:
"6.In the circumstance, the only issue before the Court would be whether the claim of
the petitioner for the benefit under Scheme 2019 would stand rejected as because of
the aforesaid mistake of not mentioning the penalty or a different view can also be
taken in the matter. Admittedly the Finance Act, 1994 wherein, Scheme 2019 has been
incorporated does not provide for any provision for re submitting an application
claiming the benefit under the scheme."
"7. In the circumstance, we are required to look into the matter from the perspective
as to whether by not mentioning the penalty in the Form SVLDRS-1, the petitioner
had committed an incurable mistake so as to disentitle the petitioner from the benefits
under the Scheme2019 or the mistake that was made can be allowed to be corrected.
Apparently, a mistake made can be of two different types, one being a mistake based
upon which a legal right is claimed so that the mistake made can be construed to be
an act of misleading the authorities to claim a benefit which otherwise a party is not
entitled or the mistake made was more of inadvertent nature, which can also be terms
as a callous mistake, which does not put the party making such mistake on an undue
advantageous position so as to make them entitled to a benefit which they are
otherwise not. A mistake that was deliberately made to claim an undue benefit which
the party was otherwise not entitled, would definitely have to be construed to be an
incurable mistake but at the same time an inadvertent mistake which may also creep
in due to an oversight or because of a callous attitude of the person making the claim
but the ultimate result of such mistake would not accrue a benefit which he otherwise
would not have been entitled can be accepted to be a curable mistake."
"8. In the instant case, the mistake made by the petitioner was that the penalty
imposed was stated to be zero whereas it is already on record that the respondent
authorities had imposed a penalty of Rs.11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty
Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). In our view the mistake
made by the petitioner by not stating about the penalty imposed upon them in Form
SVLDRS-1 cannot be said to be a mistake by which the petitioner claimed an undue
benefit which they otherwise are not entitled under the law. When we look into the
Scheme2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom
a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme.
Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019 may be such that the benefit
of exemption, may even be applicable to the amount of penalty imposed, in which
event, the petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to a greater
exemption if the amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning the
penalty."
Page No.# 4/4
5. It is agreed between the parties that the issues involved in this writ petition is also squarely
covered by the said judgment dated 04.05.2020 in WP(C)No.2149/2020.
6. In view of such agreement this writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to
submit an application before the respondent authorities for correction to be made in the information
provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the penalty imposed and upon such application being
made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. The requirement of
submitting application be made within a period of 15 days from obtaining the certified copy of the
order and upon receiving of the application, the respondents shall pass an order on the same within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the application.
7. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
