JAI MARUTHI INTERIORS Vs. DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order dtd. 29/2/2020 in respect of the application filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme-3 (SVLDRS-3).

(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 dtd. 9/7/2019. Such order was carried in appeal by the petitioner on 20/8/2019. The appeal was disposed of on 20/5/2020. 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.11,41,343.00 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 30/6/2019. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 9 of the order-in-original dtd. 9/7/2019, and pointed out that it is recorded therein that the hearing was not concluded until after a month beyond 31/5/2019. 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.48,29,294.00, which is inclusive of the interest component of Rs.11,41,343.00. By referring to sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 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.