Keshav Sound VS Union Of India

The petitioner is contesting the validity of Form No.3 issued by the designated committee, represented by Respondent No.5, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). This form indicates that the petitioner is obligated to pay a sum of Rs. 38,41,637 under the SVLDRS. However, the petitioner asserts that they are not liable to pay any amount and supports this claim by referencing Form SVLDRS-1, which they had previously filed.

This dispute hinges on the interpretation and application of the SVLDRS. The petitioner contends that their liability, as stated in Form No.3, is erroneous and contrary to the details provided in their initial submission, Form SVLDRS-1. They argue that the discrepancy between the two forms calls into question the accuracy and validity of the assessment made by the designated committee.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument rests on the consistency and accuracy of their filings under the SVLDRS. They maintain that Form SVLDRS-1 accurately reflects their tax liability under the scheme and should serve as the basis for any determination regarding the amount owed. Therefore, they seek to challenge the assessment made in Form No.3 and have the discrepancy reconciled in their favor.

This legal challenge raises significant questions about procedural fairness, the interpretation of scheme guidelines, and the authority of the designated committee in assessing tax liabilities under the SVLDRS. The outcome of this case could have implications for other taxpayers navigating the SVLDRS and seeking resolution of legacy tax disputes.

In summary, the petitioner is disputing the assessment made in Form No.3 under the SVLDRS, asserting that they owe no amount as indicated and relying on the accuracy of their initial submission, Form SVLDRS-1, to support their case. This dispute underscores broader issues of procedural integrity and the interpretation of scheme guidelines within the context of legacy tax dispute resolution.

During the legal proceedings, Mr. Ashwini Kumar and Mr. Jetly presented arguments regarding three show cause notices issued to the petitioner, which were adjudicated upon through an Order-in-Original dated 31st January 2018, resulting in a total liability of Rs. 1,15,39,463. Mr. Jetly contends that this amount falls within the category of arrears as defined by the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS).

The crux of the matter revolves around the classification of the aforementioned liability within the framework of the SVLDRS. Mr. Jetly asserts that the amount determined through the Order-in-Original qualifies as arrears under the SVLDRS provisions. This implies that the petitioner would be eligible to avail themselves of the benefits provided under the SVLDRS for resolving legacy tax disputes.

The argument put forth by Mr. Jetly highlights the pivotal issue of whether the liability established through the Order-in-Original aligns with the criteria set forth by the SVLDRS for inclusion within the ambit of the scheme. If deemed as arrears under the SVLDRS, the petitioner may have the opportunity to avail themselves of the scheme’s provisions for resolving and settling their tax liability.

This legal debate underscores the complexity surrounding the application of the SVLDRS to pre-existing tax disputes and the importance of accurately categorizing liabilities within the framework of the scheme. The outcome of this deliberation will significantly impact the petitioner’s ability to utilize the benefits offered by the SVLDRS in resolving their tax obligations.

In summary, the arguments presented by Mr. Ashwini Kumar and Mr. Jetly center on the classification of the liability determined through the Order-in-Original within the scope of the SVLDRS. Mr. Jetly contends that the amount qualifies as arrears under the SVLDRS, thereby potentially allowing the petitioner to resolve their tax dispute under the provisions of the scheme. This legal discourse underscores the nuanced interpretation of the SVLDRS guidelines and its implications for resolving legacy tax disputes.

The legal proceedings further unfolded with the issuance of a fourth show cause notice to the petitioner on 28th March 2018, amounting to Rs. 76,83,273. This notice was still awaiting adjudication, prompting Mr. Jetly to argue that it should be categorized under investigation, inquiry, or audit according to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS). Mr. Jetly contended that for this particular notice, tax relief would amount to 50% of the tax dues, resulting in an amount payable of Rs. 38,41,637.

The focal point of contention revolves around the classification of this fourth show cause notice within the framework of the SVLDRS. Mr. Jetly’s argument hinges on the characterization of the notice as pending adjudication, thus falling under the category of investigation, inquiry, or audit. This classification carries significant implications for the determination of the tax relief applicable to the petitioner under the SVLDRS.

By asserting that the notice qualifies for the 50% tax relief provision, Mr. Jetly presents a strategic approach to mitigating the petitioner’s potential tax liability. This underscores the importance of accurately interpreting and applying the provisions of the SVLDRS to the petitioner’s specific circumstances.

The legal discourse surrounding the categorization of the fourth show cause notice highlights the complexity inherent in resolving legacy tax disputes under the SVLDRS. The outcome of this deliberation will have substantial ramifications for the petitioner’s financial obligations and their ability to avail themselves of the benefits provided by the SVLDRS for resolving tax disputes.

In summary, Mr. Jetly’s argument centers on categorizing the fourth show cause notice within the SVLDRS framework, asserting that it qualifies for tax relief under the scheme. This legal debate underscores the intricate interpretation of the SVLDRS guidelines and its implications for the petitioner’s tax liability and potential resolution of their legacy tax disputes.

The petitioner encountered a significant challenge stemming from the filing of a single common application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) encompassing both categories of their tax liability. This approach presented a complication when respondents raised a demand based on the reference number provided by the petitioner in the pending show cause notice, specifically referencing the fourth show cause notice awaiting adjudication. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 38,41,637 was indicated as payable under the SVLDRS Scheme.

This situation underscores the complexity arising from the petitioner’s decision to consolidate their application under the SVLDRS. By merging both categories of their tax liability into a single application, the petitioner inadvertently triggered a mechanism wherein respondents could reference pending show cause notices to assess their tax dues under the SVLDRS.

The crux of the matter lies in the implications of this consolidated application on the petitioner’s tax liability and their eligibility for relief under the SVLDRS. The respondents’ decision to rely on the reference number provided by the petitioner in the pending show cause notice highlights the procedural intricacies involved in resolving tax disputes under the SVLDRS.

This scenario presents a legal conundrum wherein the petitioner’s decision to file a common application under the SVLDRS inadvertently led to the assessment of their tax liability based on a pending show cause notice. The outcome of this situation will significantly impact the petitioner’s financial obligations and their ability to resolve their tax disputes under the SVLDRS.

In summary, the petitioner’s challenge arises from the filing of a single common application under the SVLDRS, which inadvertently led to the assessment of their tax liability based on a pending show cause notice. This situation underscores the procedural complexities inherent in resolving tax disputes under the SVLDRS and raises questions regarding the petitioner’s eligibility for relief under the scheme.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: