Timely deposits crucial under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019; Court dismisses petition for missed deadline

The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of timely deposits under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019. The petitioner, a private limited company, failed to deposit the determined amount by the Scheme's deadline, leading to the denial of benefits. Despite internal communications for financial constraints due to COVID-19, the Court held that no further benefits could be granted post the Scheme's end date. Rulings in similar cases supported the decision, highlighting the necessity of adherence to Scheme deadlines for availing benefits, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction to decide pending representation under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019
2. Quashment of demand notices issued by respondent No.3

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company, sought direction under Article 226 to decide pending representation for benefit under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019. A show-cause notice was issued for a demand of &8377; 54,11,617, with partial deposits made earlier. The petitioner applied for scheme benefits, but respondent No.2 passed a recovery order. Despite seeking adjustment and extensions due to financial constraints from COVID-19, demand notices were issued by respondent No.3, leading to the present petition.

2. Respondents argued that the Scheme ended on 30.06.2019, and no benefit could be granted post that. The petitioner's failure to deposit the determined amount was cited as the reason for denial. The letter dated 14.07.2020 was deemed as internal communication for data collection, not extending the Scheme. The petitioner's plea was for acceptance of the adjusted amount, but respondent No.3 issued subsequent demand notices, leading to the current legal challenge.

3. The Court noted the petitioner's failure to deposit the determined amount by 30.06.2020, despite internal communications for major declarants facing difficulties. Citing precedents, the Court held that once the Scheme ended, no further benefits could be extended. Rulings in similar cases emphasized the importance of timely deposits under the Scheme, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court found no grounds for interference, aligning with previous judgments on the matter.

---