2022 (3) TMI 109 - HC - Service Tax

Court denies extension of time under SVLDRS, 2019, citing scheme's strict timelines

M/s. Hi Tec Point Technologies Versus Union Of India Represented By Secretary (Finance), Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi., The Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Himachal Pradesh, The Joint Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate Shimla,

The court dismissed the petition seeking an extension of time for payment under the SVLDRS, 2019, emphasizing the scheme's time-bound nature and lack of ... Sabkas Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - amnesty scheme - extension of time allowed or not - whether the SVLDRS, 2019 can be made operational by the Court beyond the period for which it was formulated? - HELD THAT:- The overwhelming view taken by the various High Courts is that time for availing of the benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended as a matter of course, especially beyond the period it was promulgated. Division Bench judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in SHEKHAR RESORTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2021 (11) TMI 245 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court clearly opined that the Scheme cannot be made operational by the Court going beyond the period for which it was formulated only for one person or to relax any of the conditions enumerated in the Scheme. The prayers made in this writ petition cannot be granted for consideration of the case of the petitioner for paying the service tax under the Scheme as the Court cannot make operational the SVLDRS, 2019, especially when the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after 1 year and 3 months from the last date of payment of determined amount of tax under the SVLDRS, 2019. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Acceptance of tax payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019).2. Extension of time for payment under SVLDRS, 2019.3. Consideration of representations made by the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Acceptance of Tax Payment under SVLDRS, 2019:The petitioner filed a declaration under the SVLDRS, 2019, declaring an amount of Rs. 1,13,65,141/- under the category of 'arrears-appeal not filed or appeal having attained finality'. The Designated Committee verified the declaration and issued Form SVLDRS-3, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 68,19,084.60/-. The petitioner failed to pay this amount within the stipulated 30 days and did not make the payment by the extended due date of 30.06.2020.2. Extension of Time for Payment under SVLDRS, 2019:The petitioner made multiple representations for an extension of time and payment in installments, but the authorities consistently informed that the SVLDRS, 2019, being a time-bound amnesty scheme, did not allow for extensions beyond 30.06.2020. The petitioner did not show willingness to pay even after being contacted by the department for an extension until 30.09.2020. The court examined various judgments from different High Courts, including Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd., Agroha Electronics, M/s Akshay Dan Charan, P. Sikkandar, and M/s Shekhar Resorts Limited, to determine whether the court could extend the scheme's operational period. The overwhelming judicial view was against extending the scheme beyond its stipulated period.3. Consideration of Representations Made by the Petitioner:The petitioner submitted several representations dated 29.06.2020, 25.09.2020, 29.12.2020, 25.03.2021, 05.06.2021, and 12.08.2021, requesting an extension for payment. However, the authorities maintained that the scheme did not provide for any extensions beyond the specified dates. The court found no merit in the petitioner's request for consideration of these representations, as the scheme's terms were clear and binding.Conclusion:The court concluded that the SVLDRS, 2019, could not be made operational by the court beyond the period for which it was formulated. The petitioner approached the court belatedly, 1 year and 3 months after the last date for payment under the scheme. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the prayers made for extending the scheme's benefits and considering the representations could not be granted. The court emphasized that the scheme's conditions were explicit and did not allow for extensions or modifications by judicial intervention.