The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the Designated Committee under Sabkha Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)” Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) in rejecting the application due to bogus certificates and notices.
The bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath.N has observed that whereSVLDRS applications had been filed by producing documents which are not genuine, the same can be rejected by the Designated Committee. Any other view, would mean that a person claiming the benefit of the scheme can come forward with any kind of document and the Designated Committee is precluded from going into the question of whether the document is genuine or not. Such a view would result in extreme situations.
The petitioner/assessee operates air conditioned buses and non-air conditioned buses, under the contract carriage permits, between Anantapur and Hyderabad and other routes. The petitioner had received a notice, dated 30.05.2016, calling upon the petitioner to register with the Tax Department and pay service tax on the operation of the air conditioned buses.
The petitioner was also informed that transportation of passengers by air conditioned buses, on contract carriage, had become taxable from 11.07.2014 onwards. The petitioner is said to have responded to the said notice by way of reply, dated 01.05.2019, furnishing the details of the booking donethrougha online ticketing agency.
The petitioner contended that any person who has a disputewith the service tax authority can apply under this scheme for a onetime settlement and liquidationof all past disputesunder theActs enumerated in the scheme, including Central Excise and the Finance Acts, containing the service tax provisions.
The petitioner stated that any person to whom a notice had been issued or where appeals, arising out of such show-cause notices, were pending, as on 30.06.2019 would be eligible for getting relief under this scheme.
The petitioner contended that the notice is sufficient to bring the petitioner under the ambit of the scheme and the order of rejection is clearly impermissible.
The Karnataka High Court had held that creation of a remarks column and assigning reasons for rejection by the Designated Committee, under the scheme,was not permissible as there was no such prescription in the statutory form. Consequently, the Single Judge set aside the order of rejection as the committee did not have any authority to go into reasons.
The court dismissed the writ petition while upholding the decision of the designated committee.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Diwakar Road Lines Versus The Union Of India and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No: 19920/2020
Date: 21/02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Harish Kumar Rasineni
Counsel For Respondent: Nagaraju Naguru
