Case Details: Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry (2025) 37 Centax 189 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) & M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had sought issuance of a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, after having paid the full amount quantified under the relevant declaration form before closure of the scheme. It was submitted that the discharge certificate in the prescribed Form SVLDRS-4 was required to be issued within the stipulated period upon such payment. However, the same was not issued by the designated committee as the computer system of the department was not generating the required form after the closure of the scheme. The petitioner relied upon Instruction No. 1/2021-CX, dated 17-03-2021, to contend that valid claims could not be denied merely because the scheme was no longer available for electronic processing. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the fact that the scheme had come to a close and was not available for electronic processing could not be a ground to deny issuance of the discharge certificate. It was observed that the instruction issued by the department itself recognised that such valid claims were required to be processed through manual mode. Accordingly, the department was directed to manually process the request of the petitioner for issuance of the discharge certificate in accordance with law.
List of Cases Cited
- CIBA of India Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax — (1993) 202 ITR 0001 (Bombay High Court) — Referred [Para 8]
- Grindlay’s Bank v. Central Govt. Indistrial Tribunal — AIR 1981 SC 606 — Referred [Para 8]
- Sir Gujan Builder v. Designated Committee, Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 — (2022) 1 Centax 132 (Mad.) = 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 437 (Mad.) — Relied on [Para 7]
- State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari — (1976) 1 SCC 719 — Referred [Para 8]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.I. & C. Instruction No. 1/2021-CX, dated 17-3-2021 [Paras 5, 6, 7]
