Full Judgment Text
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11648/2021
TOPLINE BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Siddharth Tewari, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with
Mr.Siddharth Singh, Advocate for
UOI.
Ms.Anushree Narain, standing counsel
for R-3 to 5.
th
% Date of Decision: 11 October, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of rejection,
passed against the Second Declaration filed vide ARN No.
LD2612190004279, issued by the Respondent No.4 by way of email dated
th
24 February, 2020. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondent No. '4'
to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to present its case in
relation to the Second Declaration, and thereafter pass a reasoned order after
adjudication of the same in accordance with the principles of natural justice
and to supply copies of complete correspondence and note-sheets in the file
pertaining to investigations and inquiry and the declarations filed by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.11648 /2021 Page 1 of 4
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.10.2021
15:53:43
Petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme along with other relevant
documents.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in 2018, the Respondent
No. 5 issued several summons and letters to the Petitioner to initiate an
enquiry/ investigation into Petitioner’s service tax liability for provision of
th
work contract services in particular, contract dated 07 August, 2012 with
M/s. Wave Mega City Center Private Limited for construction of shop-cum-
offices in Sectors 25A and 32, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He states that in
response to the said Summons and other letters, the Petitioner submitted the
relevant documents including the details of challans of pre-deposited tax
liability. He contends that Respondent No. 5 accepted that the Petitioner had
declared its service tax liability in its correspondence, and asked the Petitioner
to fully deposit its admitted liability. He states that the Petitioner, relying on
the instructions of Respondent No. 5, even deposited a total of Rs. 10.5 Lakhs
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand) out of the admitted service tax liability of
Rs. 18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs), which was later found to be Rs.
20.71 Lakh (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seventy-One Thousand) after the balance
CENVAT Credit was also included.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in order to take advantage
of the said Sabka Vishwas Scheme and settle the ongoing tax dispute, the
th
Petitioner, on 06 December, 2019, filed a declaration to avail the benefit of
the already deposited tax liability and to discharge the pending tax liability
once and for all. However he states that the said declaration was summarily
rejected by Respondent No. 4 stating “Amount of dues was not quantified up
to 30.06.2019”.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner made
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.11648 /2021 Page 2 of 4
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.10.2021
15:53:43
th
another attempt by filing a fresh declaration dated 26 December, 2019 for
the same issue and dispute, which too was rejected for the same reason. He
th
states that subsequently, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 30 December,
2019 requesting Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the request to settle
Petitioner’s ongoing tax dispute as per the provisions of the Sabka Vishwas
Scheme. However, the Petitioner did not receive any response for months on
any of its letters for reconsideration. He states that the Petitioner also filed
several applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for supply of
information and documents related to anti-evasion branch file of the
Petitioner, but to no avail.
6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Petitioner had written a
th
unilateral letter dated 11 June, 2018 stating that its service tax liability upto
th
30 June, 2017 was Rs.18 lakhs and interest liability of Rs.14 lakhs. Along
th
with the above letter, a challan of Rs.3 lakhs dated 11 June, 2018 towards
part payment of the said liability was enclosed.
th
7. The Respondent vide its letter dated 08 August, 2019 had pointed out
that, even according to the Petitioner’s own calculation, service tax liability
was due and outstanding. The Petitioner was asked to deposit the balance
service tax liability as calculated by the Petitioner vide the said letter.
th
8. In fact, from the summons dated 20 May, 2019, it is apparent that the
case was under investigation under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act and
the Petitioner has been asked to furnish a large number of documents
including copies of challans showing its service tax liability deposited after
th
the date of service. In our opinion, the said communication dated 08 August,
2019 does not indicate that the quantum of duty had either been quantified or
th
communicated by the Respondent to the Petitioner on or before 30 June,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.11648 /2021 Page 3 of 4
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.10.2021
15:53:43
2019. Consequently, the present writ petition being bereft of merit is
dismissed.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 11, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.11648 /2021 Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.10.2021
15:53:43