Case Details: Evershine Enterprises vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 214 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- S/Shri Bharat Raichandani, Bhagrati Sahu i/b. Prabhakar Shetty, for the Petitioner.
- Shri P.C. Cardozo, a/w Ms Mamta Omle, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a service tax assessee, was subjected to proceedings initiated by the department through the issuance of show cause notices proposing tax demands, which were subsequently confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which remained pending at the time of introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner thereafter filed a declaration under the scheme and, pursuant to a personal hearing, furnished communications along with challans and documents evidencing payments already made and recoveries effected during the investigation. However, the designated committee issued Form SVLDRS-3, determining the amount payable without granting a deduction of such amounts, treating the petitioner’s submissions as acceptance of liability. The petitioner contended that the determination was erroneous and contrary to the scheme provisions, as even the show cause notice acknowledged certain recoveries, and accordingly challenged the same. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the crucial exercise of verification was not carried out in respect of the petitioner’s claim of pre-deposit and recovery of amounts during the course of investigation. It was observed that the petitioner had produced challans and also relied upon the show cause notice issued by the department, which itself indicated recovery of amounts during investigation. The Court held that all such materials were required to be verified in the context of the aims and objectives of the scheme and could not be disregarded while determining the amount payable. Applying the rule of contextual interpretation, the Court quashed the impugned SVLDRS-3 to the extent of such non-consideration and directed the constitution of a designated committee for proper verification of the petitioner’s claims. It was further held that the petitioner’s contentions regarding pre-deposit and recoveries were to be examined afresh by the designated committee after verification of documents and materials in accordance with Sections 124, 126 and 127 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.
List of Cases Cited
- Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 400 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 24, 26]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 5/2019-C.E. (N.T.), dated 21-8-2019 [Para 6]
