2022 (4) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition dismissed for non-compliance with Sabka Vishwas Scheme deadlines and lack of efforts for discharge certificate

The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to meet payment deadlines under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, lack of efforts to obtain ... Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - failure to comply with the scheme - because of the countrywide lockdown, petitioner could not deposit the amount (as prescribed in the scheme) within 30 days - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner neither deposited the amount within 30 days from the date of issuance of Form no.3 on 21.01.2020 nor make any efforts to make payment upto 30.06.2020. The 30 days expired on 21.02.2020 and at that time there was no Covid-19 pandemic as well as no lockdown. Even during the extended period also the petitioner did not make any effort to make the payment. The petitioner deposited the amount on 16.11.2021 which is after almost one year. There are no ground to interfere - petition dismissed. Issues:1. Application of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.2. Extension of limitation due to Covid-19 pandemic.3. Non-payment within the specified period.4. Issuance of discharge certificate.5. Efforts made by the petitioner for payment.6. Bona fides of the petitioner.7. Benefit under the Amnesty scheme.1. Application of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:The petitioner, a government civil contractor, faced a tax liability and penalty imposed by respondent no.4. The Sabka Vishwas Scheme was introduced to resolve such tax matters. The petitioner applied under this scheme, and the committee issued Form no.3 directing payment for full and final settlement. However, due to lockdown, the petitioner could not pay within the stipulated 30 days.2. Extension of limitation due to Covid-19 pandemic:An ordinance extended the payment deadline from 'within 30 days' to '30th June 2020' due to the pandemic. The petitioner argued that this extension should apply to his case, considering the Supreme Court's suo moto extension of limitation in all matters.3. Non-payment within the specified period:The petitioner failed to deposit the amount within 30 days of Form no.3 issuance or by 30.06.2020, even with the extended deadline. The petitioner eventually paid on 16.11.2021, almost a year later, raising questions about compliance with the payment timelines.4. Issuance of discharge certificate:The petitioner claimed to have paid a sum under the scheme but did not receive a discharge certificate. This non-issuance led to respondent no.5 demanding outstanding dues, creating a dispute regarding the completion of payment obligations.5. Efforts made by the petitioner for payment:The petitioner's efforts to make payments under the scheme were hindered, leading to delays and subsequent demands for outstanding amounts. The court assessed the petitioner's actions and the timeline of payments to determine compliance with the scheme's requirements.6. Bona fides of the petitioner:The court scrutinized the petitioner's conduct, highlighting discrepancies in payment claims, lack of communication with tax authorities, and delays in addressing demands and notices. The petitioner's actions post-payment deadline raised doubts about the sincerity of intentions and compliance with legal obligations.7. Benefit under the Amnesty scheme:The court considered the petitioner's request for benefits under the Amnesty scheme, weighing the petitioner's readiness to pay against the lapses in meeting payment deadlines and fulfilling procedural requirements. The court referenced past judgments to evaluate the petitioner's eligibility for scheme benefits.In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to meet payment deadlines, lack of efforts to obtain a discharge certificate, and questionable conduct post-payment deadline. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's actions, compliance with scheme requirements, and the absence of valid grounds for interference.