2022 (11) TMI 342 - HC - Service Tax

Court dismisses petition challenging Finance Act & CGST order due to non-compliance with SVLDR Scheme, 2019.

The court dismissed the petition challenging an order under the Finance Act and CGST Act, 2017, where the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount ... Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - claim put up before this Court is that some amount of tax was deposited by the petitioner earlier in regard to the same assessment year but due to inadvertence could not be claimed while applying under the said Scheme - demand by issuance of notice u/S. 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- What the petitioner wants in this petition is to reopen his case under the said Scheme after the last date which is not possible as that would amount to putting the clock back and tinkering with the scheme and allowing the petitioner to adopt procedure dehorse the Scheme. The Apex Court in M/s Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] while dealing with somewhat similar situation has held that It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. This Court cannot help the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has to take recourse to remedy under the provisions of CGST Act, as per law - Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge under Article 226 to order dated 09.02.2021 seeking amount under Finance Act and CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's application under SVLDR Scheme, 2019. Petitioner's failure to deposit the required amount. Request to reopen the case under the Scheme after the last date. Judicial precedents regarding adherence to Scheme terms. Dismissal of Special Leave Petition and similar order in another case. Court's inability to assist petitioner, directing recourse under CGST Act.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a challenge under Article 226 against an order seeking an amount under the Finance Act and CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme, 2019) for availing tax benefits. Despite being directed to deposit a discounted amount, the petitioner failed to comply by the prescribed deadline of 30/06/2020. The petitioner claimed that some tax amount was previously deposited but inadvertently not considered under the Scheme.The petitioner sought to reopen the case under the Scheme post the deadline, which the court deemed impermissible as it would disrupt the Scheme's integrity. Citing the judgment in M/s Yashi Constructions case, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to Scheme terms without extension, as modifying the Scheme terms lies within the government's prerogative. The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and another case with similar facts, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to Scheme provisions.Consequently, the court held that it could not provide relief to the petitioner and directed them to seek remedy under the provisions of the CGST Act, as per the law. With these observations, the petition was dismissed, underscoring the significance of complying with Scheme regulations and the limitations of judicial intervention in such matters.