Court dismisses petition for missed payment deadlines under VCES, 2013. No extension granted.

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to relief as they did not meet the mandatory payment deadlines under the VCES, 2013. The court held that the scheme does not allow for discretionary extension of time for payment and rejected the petitioners' plea for condonation of delay. The impugned communication declaring their ineligibility under the VCES, 2013, was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the impugned communication dated 29th December 2016.
2. Compliance with the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013.
3. Power to condone delay in payment under the VCES, 2013.
4. Interpretation of Section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013.
5. Applicability of judgments from other High Courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Impugned Communication:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 29th December 2016, which declared their ineligibility under the VCES, 2013. The communication noted that the petitioners failed to make the mandatory balance payment of Rs. 27,51,696/- along with interest before 31st December 2014, as required under Proviso 4 of Section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013.

2. Compliance with the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013:
The petitioners, a company and its directors, claimed they did not pay service tax from October 2007 to December 2012 due to oversight. They applied for the VCES, 2013, which is an amnesty scheme encouraging voluntary payment of service tax. Their application was initially rejected but later accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax after determining that there was no inquiry, investigation, or audit pending as of 1st March 2013.

3. Power to Condon Delay in Payment under the VCES, 2013:
The petitioners argued that the delay in the last two payments was due to miscommunication with their Chartered Accountant and should be condoned. However, the respondents contended that the scheme did not allow for condonation of delay beyond the specified dates. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that the scheme is not open-ended and does not provide for discretionary condonation of delay.

4. Interpretation of Section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013:
Section 107 outlines the procedure for making declarations and payments under the VCES, 2013. Sub-section (4) and its proviso specify that any remaining tax dues must be paid by 30th June 2014, with a further extension to 31st December 2014, subject to interest. The court held that this provision is clear and does not allow for any further extension or condonation of delay.

5. Applicability of Judgments from Other High Courts:
The petitioners relied on judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court, which allowed for condonation of delay in similar schemes. However, the court distinguished these cases on facts and held that the VCES, 2013, does not provide for such condonation. The court also referred to a judgment by the High Court of Jharkhand, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting the argument for condonation of delay under the VCES, 2013.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as they failed to comply with the mandatory payment deadlines under the VCES, 2013. The court emphasized that the scheme's provisions are clear and do not permit any discretionary extension of time for payment. The petitioners' argument for condonation of delay was rejected, and the impugned communication was upheld.

---