Court quashes orders, allows payment in 30 days. Respondents to close case if conditions met. Failure leads to further orders.

The court quashed the challenged orders and communications, allowing the petitioner to make payments within 30 days. If payment is made within this period, respondents must accept it and close the case, provided other scheme conditions are met. Failure to pay within the stipulated time will lead to the fourth respondent issuing appropriate orders after a hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the communication dated 23.09.2020 by the third respondent.
2. Legitimacy of the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE dated 19.10.2020 by the fourth respondent.
3. Petitioner's eligibility for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 benefits.
4. Impact of technical issues on the petitioner's tax payment under the scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Communication Dated 23.09.2020 by the Third Respondent:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, challenged the communication dated 23.09.2020, which stated that the due date for payment of tax dues under the SVLDRS scheme was 30.06.2020, and no extension had been provided by the CBIC. The communication emphasized that if the declarant did not pay within the stipulated time, the declaration would be treated as lapsed.

2. Legitimacy of the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE Dated 19.10.2020 by the Fourth Respondent:
The petitioner also contested the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original No.2/2019 C.Ex (AC 1 Dvn) dated 01.05.2019. The petitioner argued that they had multiple cases pending, one of which was under appeal, and sought to settle the disputes under the SVLDRS scheme.

3. Petitioner's Eligibility for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 Benefits:
The petitioner intended to settle disputes under the SVLDRS scheme and had approached the fifth respondent bank to make payments via RTGS. Although the payment was initially successful, it was re-credited to the petitioner's account without their knowledge. The petitioner argued that they paid the amount before the deadline and should not be penalized due to the re-credit issue. The respondents countered that payments under the scheme must be made electronically through Internet banking, and the petitioner's attempt to pay via RTGS was impermissible.

4. Impact of Technical Issues on the Petitioner's Tax Payment Under the Scheme:
The court considered whether the petitioner could be denied the scheme's benefits due to the technical issue of re-crediting the payment. The facts showed that the petitioner had indeed attempted to pay the amount through RTGS, but it was re-credited due to a system error. The court found that the petitioner should not be penalized for this technical glitch and allowed them to make the payment within 30 days from the receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned orders and communications, permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts within 30 days. If the petitioner makes the payment within this period, the respondents are to accept it and close the case, subject to the petitioner fulfilling other scheme conditions. If the petitioner fails to pay within the stipulated time, the fourth respondent is to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the law after a hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---