Court denies extension under Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to COVID impact, stresses timely compliance

M/s. National Construction Company Versus The Designated Committee under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019

M/s. National Construction Company Versus The Designated Committee under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 - [2022] 97 G S.T.R. 367 ... Issues:
1) Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2) Extension of time for payment under the scheme.
3) Invocation of writ jurisdiction for payment facilitation.
4) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on payment obligations.

Analysis:
1) The judgment pertains to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, aimed at settling tax disputes through a one-time window. The petitioner sought settlement under the scheme, with the Designated Committee determining the payable amount. However, failure to pay within the stipulated time led to the lapse of the settlement statement.

2) The petitioner, after a lapse of four months, approached the Court seeking permission to deposit the determined amount. The Court considered arguments from both sides, where the petitioner cited reasons for payment delay, including the COVID-19 pandemic impact. The respondent highlighted the necessity of full compliance with scheme provisions for availing benefits.

3) The Court deliberated on the petitioner's plea to invoke writ jurisdiction to facilitate payment beyond the specified timeline. The petitioner's contention of pandemic-induced payment challenges was weighed against the scheme's requirement of timely compliance. The Court emphasized that extensions granted were to aid payment within the scheme's framework.

4) Addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on payment obligations, the Court noted the initial announcement of a national lockdown on 23/3/2020. Despite subsequent extensions, the petitioner failed to meet the extended deadline of 30/6/2020. The Court concluded that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to evade voluntarily incurred obligations, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to scheme provisions for availing benefits and highlights the limitations of writ jurisdiction in altering payment timelines. The Court's decision was based on the principle of upholding obligations voluntarily undertaken, even in the face of unforeseen circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.