Page 101 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] OPEL AUTO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 27
indicated during inquiry only a preliminary amount especially when petition-
er informed by Superintendent GRP-1 (Anti-Evasion) that case for Service Tax
still being enquired into - Application of appellant not covered under
SVLDRS Scheme. [paras 2, 5, 6]
Petition dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ashok Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the
Petitioner.
Shri Sunish Bindlish, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral)]. - This petition has been filed chal-
lenging the action of the respondents in issuing recovery notices even though as
per the petitioner it had applied under the SVLDRS Scheme.
2. As per the petitioner, during inquiry by the Anti Evasion CGST,
Gurugram, on 12-1-2018 the Unit Head of the petitioner had made a statement
that an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs was due as service tax liability. As per the peti-
tioner, thereafter the investigation is going on. The petitioner deposited a sum of
Rs. 2 lakhs and wrote a letter to the Superintendent GRP-1 (Anti-Evasion),
Gurugram asking for five installments to pay the amount ‘as soon as possible’.
Thereafter on 18-12-2018, the petitioner is informed that the case for service tax
was being enquired into. During the pendency of this enquiry, the SVLDRS
Scheme came into being and the petitioner had applied. However, it has been
informed that its application could not be accepted as under the said Scheme the
due amount had to be determined and the same has not been determined uptil
now.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed that in fact its ap-
plication could not have been rejected because the respondents wrote a letter
dated 24-9-2019 (Annexure P-10) to one of the supplier of the petitioner calling
upon it to stop payment to the petitioner and the amount due may be paid di-
rectly to the credit of the Central Goods and Services Tax Department. The peti-
tioner particularly relies upon Para No. 2 of the said letter which is as follows :-
‘During the course of investigation, it has been found that M/s. Opel Auto
Products Pvt. Ltd. has defaulted the payment of Service Tax to the tune of
Rs. 20 Lakhs pertaining to the period 2015-16 to June, 2017.’
4. It is the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that this sentence
shows that liability stands determined.
5. In our opinion, the said letter does not show final quantification de-
termination and is at best a preliminary figure.
6. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the re-
spondents in refusing to accept the application of the petitioner to be covered
under the aforementioned scheme.
7. Petition is dismissed.
8. Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M. Application,
if any, also stands disposed of.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  101