Madras High Court
M/S. Jai Maruthi Interiors vs The Designated Committee on 1 March, 2024
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.23601 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.23601 of 2021
&
WMP Nos.24843 & 24845 of 2021
M/s. Jai Maruthi Interiors,
No.26, Selva Vinayakar Koil
Street, Old Washermanpet,
Chennai-600 021,
Represented by its Partner
Mr.S.Kesavan ... Petitioner
vs
1. The Designated Committee,
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes
Resolution Scheme), 2019
(Office of Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate)
26/1, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
2. Superintendent ofCGST and Central Tax,
Royapuram Range IV, Royapuram Division,
Chennai North Commissionerate,
459, Anna Salai, Ananda Complex, 2nd Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23601 of 2021
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the First
Respondent bearing SVLDRS-3 No.L290220SV300936 dated
29/02/2020, quash the same and direct the First Respondent to
calculate the correct amount payable under 'Litigation' Category of
the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme), 2019,
besides directing the First Respondent to reckon the deposits of tax to
the tune of Rs.34,47,959/- and interest to the tune of Rs.11,41,343/-,
totalling Rs.45,89,302/- to be adjusted against the correct amount
payable to the tune of Rs.47,13,239/-, leaving the balance payable by
the Petitioner as Rs.1,23,937/- within such time as this Court may
direct and issue discharge certificate after such payment.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohanamurali
Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dated 29.02.2020 in respect of
the application filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas
Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme-3 (SVLDRS-3).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The petitioner was an assessee under the erstwhile Service
Tax regime under the Finance Act, 1994. Proceedings relating thereto
culminated in an order-in-original dated 09.07.2019. Such order was
carried in appeal by the petitioner on 20.08.2019. The appeal was
disposed of on 20.05.2020. Meanwhile, upon introduction of SVLDRS,
the petitioner filed a declaration in SVLDRS-1 under the category
“litigation” on 26.12.2019. According to the petitioner, the first
respondent failed to recognize the payment of interest to the extent of
Rs.11,41,343/- while computing the amount pre-deposited by the
petitioner in Form SVLDRS-2. In addition, the petitioner contends
that the categorization of the petitioner's application as “arrears” was
incorrect because the final hearing of the original adjudication took
place after 30.06.2019. The present writ petition was filed in the above
facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
paragraph 9 of the order-in-original dated 09.07.2019, and pointed
out that it is recorded therein that the hearing was not concluded
until after a month beyond 31.05.2019. If the said one month is taken
into consideration, learned counsel submits that the application filed
by the petitioner would fall within the category of litigation. The
next contention of learned counsel is that the amount paid towards
interest was not taken into consideration. In support of this
submission, learned counsel refers to the declaration in Form
SVLDRS-1 by the petitioner and points out that the pre-deposit
amount specified therein was a sum of Rs.48,29,294/-, which is
inclusive of the interest component of Rs.11,41,343/-. By referring to
sub-section 2 of Section 124 of the Scheme, learned counsel submits
that the expression used therein is “any amount paid as pre-deposit”.
Therefore, he contends that this includes amounts paid by way of
interest. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies on the
judgment of this Court in Vamsee Overseas Marine Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Vamsee Overseas), 2021 (47)
G.S.T.L. 463 (Mad.), particularly paragraph 8 thereof.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Mr.Mohanamurali, learned senior standing counsel, appears
on behalf of the respondents. As regards the contention that the
petitioner's case falls within the category 'litigation', he points out
that the final hearing took place on 31.05.2019. Since the final hearing
took place prior to 30.06.2019, he submits that the case was correctly
categorized as falling under “arrears”. He also referred to the
categorization indicated in Form SVLDRS-2 in this connection. As
regards the claim towards interest, learned senior standing counsel
submits that the petitioner was provided a personal hearing and did
not place before the first respondent evidence of payment of interest.
Therefore, he submits that the pre-deposit amount was specified as
Rs.34,47,959/- and tax liability was computed on that basis.
5. The order in original dated 09.07.2019 is on record. Paragraph
9 thereof records expressly that the final hearing took place on
31.05.2019. The admitted position is that no hearing was held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereafter. While learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the
adjudicating authority waited for one month thereafter, the fact that
the adjudicating authority waited for one month before issuing
orders does not mean that the final hearing took place after
30.06.2019. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner's case falls
within the category “arrears” and not within the category “litigation”
contains no infirmity.
6. The other aspect on which the order was challenged was
non-consideration of interest. As contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner, sub-section 2 of Section 124 uses the expression “any
amount paid as pre-deposit”. This provision was interpreted by this
Court in Vamsee Overseas wherein it was held that the applicant
under the Scheme is entitled to credit in respect of interest payment
also. In order to claim credit for interest, it is necessary for the
petitioner to place on record relevant documents and establish the
claim. This exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court. However, in
order to enable the petitioner to place relevant documents before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents, the impugned order calls for interference.
7. For the reasons indicated above, the impugned order is set
aside only with regard to the computation of pre-deposit amount and
the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The first respondent is
directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner,
including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within
a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
8. W.P.No.23601 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
costs.
01.03.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kal
To
1. The Designated Committee,
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes
Resolution Scheme), 2019
(Office of Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate)
26/1, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
2. Superintendent ofCGST and Central Tax,
Royapuram Range IV, Royapuram Division,
Chennai North Commissionerate,
459, Anna Salai, Ananda Complex, 2nd Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
&
WMP Nos.24843 & 24845 of 2021
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
