Amnesty Schemes Are Final: Bombay HC Quashes Interest Demands After SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

The Bombay High Court has quashed the interest demands after the Discharge Certificate issued under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) and reaffirmed the finality of Amnesty Schemes. The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna ruled that once a discharge certificate is issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), tax authorities cannot subsequently raise demands for interest or penalty for the same period and matter. The Court set aside multiple show cause notices issued by the GST Department against a Mumbai-based service provider, holding them to be without authority of law and contrary to the Finance Act, 2019. The case arose from an audit conducted for the period 2013–14 to 2017–18, during which the department quantified service tax dues. Following audit communications issued in March 2019, the assessee made certain payments. When the SVLDRS was introduced as a one-time amnesty scheme to settle legacy service tax and excise disputes, the assessee opted for the scheme and filed a declaration in December 2019. Although the total tax liability had been quantified prior to the cut-off date of 30 June 2019, making the assessee eligible for relief under the “enquiry, investigation or audit” category, the declaration was inadvertently filed under the “arrears” category. The designated committee subsequently issued Form SVLDRS-3, quantified the payable amount, and upon payment, granted a discharge certificate in February 2020, certifying full and final settlement of tax dues for the relevant period. Despite the issuance of the discharge certificate, the department later issued show cause notices in March 2021 and again in June 2022, seeking to recover substantial amounts towards interest on alleged delayed payment of service tax for periods already covered by the SVLDRS settlement. The assessee challenged these notices before the High Court, contending that the discharge certificate brought complete closure to the dispute and barred any further proceedings. After examining the statutory scheme, the Court emphasised that Section 129 of the Finance Act, 2019 gives conclusive finality to a discharge certificate issued under SVLDRS. Once such a certificate is granted, the declarant is not liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty for the matter and time period covered, and the same cannot be reopened in any other proceedings. The Bench noted that the tax dues had been quantified well before the cut-off date and that the assessee had already paid amounts exceeding what would have been payable under the scheme. In such circumstances, the demand of additional interest after issuance of the discharge certificate was held to be ex facie illegal. The Court also rejected the department’s objection regarding delay and laches, observing that reopening a settled matter itself gave rise to a continuing cause of action. The Court reiterated that even clerical or procedural errors in filing a declaration under the scheme could be rectified under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019, and such errors should not deprive an otherwise eligible assessee of the scheme’s benefits. The object of SVLDRS, the Court observed, was to bring quietus to past disputes, encourage voluntary compliance, and reduce litigation, not to create fresh demands after settlement. The High Court quashed the impugned show cause notices and directed the authorities to treat the assessee’s declaration under the appropriate “investigation/audit” category. The Court further ordered the department to consider adjustment or grant of the excess amount paid by the assessee while availing the scheme, and to complete the exercise within a stipulated time frame. Case Details Case Title: Astute Valuers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI Case No.: Writ Petition No. 74 Of 2023 Date: 12 December 2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Bharat Raichandani Counsel For Respondent: Subir Kumar Click Here To Read Order Read More: Mere Location of DRI or CRCL in Delhi Does Not Confer Territorial Jurisdiction In Goods Seizure Cases: Delhi HC

Amnesty Schemes Are Final: Bombay HC Quashes Interest Demands After SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

Membership Required

Latest articles

Courts Can’t Examine Merits While Deciding Plea for Amendment of Plaint; Legal Heirs Can Raise Bona Fide Need Based on Subsequent Events

Avail Statutory Appeal Remedy: Jharkhand High Court Refuses to Entertain Tata Steel’s Writ Against GST Order

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Advocate in GST Fake ITC Case

Misbranding Allegations Require Trial: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash Drugs Act Case

More like this

Courts Can’t Examine Merits While Deciding Plea for Amendment of Plaint; Legal Heirs Can Raise Bona Fide Need Based on Subsequent Events

Avail Statutory Appeal Remedy: Jharkhand High Court Refuses to Entertain Tata Steel’s Writ Against GST Order

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Advocate in GST Fake ITC Case

About us

Company

Categories