CWP No.8139 of 2020 (O&M) -1- IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.110 CWP No.8139 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.06.2020 Opel Auto Products Private Limited ...... Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI *** Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Standing Counsel for respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed challenging action of respondents in issuing recovery notices even though as per petitioner it had applied under SVLDRS Scheme. 2. As per petitioner, during inquiry by Anti Evasion CGST, Gurugram, on 12.01.2018 Unit Head of petitioner had made statement that amount of Rs.20 Lakhs was due as service tax liability. As per petitioner, thereafter investigation is going on. petitioner deposited sum of Rs.2 lakhs and wrote letter to Superintendent 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:33:04 ::: CWP No.8139 of 2020 (O&M) -2- GRP-1 (Anti-Evasion), Gurugram asking for five installments to pay amount 'as soon as possible'. Thereafter on 18.12.2018, petitioner is informed that case for service tax was being enquired into. During pendency of this enquiry, SVLDRS Scheme came into being and petitioner had applied. However, it has been informed that its application could not be accepted as under said Scheme due amount had to be determined and same has not been determined uptil now. 3. In present petition, petitioner has claimed that in fact its application could not have been rejected because respondents wrote letter dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure P-10) to one of supplier of petitioner calling upon it to stop payment to petitioner and amount due may be paid directly to credit of Central Goods and Service Tax Department. petitioner particularly relies upon Para No.2 of said letter which is as follows:- 'During course of investigation, it has been found that M/s Opel Auto Products Pvt. Ltd. has defaulted payment of Service Tax to tune of Rs.20 Lakhs pertaining to period 2015-16 to June, 2017.' 4. It is contention of counsel for petitioner that this sentence shows that liability stands determined. 5. In our opinion, said letter does not show final quantification determination and is at best preliminary figure. 6. In circumstances, no fault can be found with action of respondents in refusing to accept application of petitioner to be covered under aforementioned scheme. 7. Petition is dismissed. 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:33:05 ::: CWP No.8139 of 2020 (O&M) -3- 8. Since main case has been decided, pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI ) JUDGE June 16, 2020 ashish/pooja Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:33:05 ::: Opel Auto Products Private Limited v. Union of India and another