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 under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 by the deadline. The court emphasized adherence to Scheme terms without extensions, highlighting the government's authority to modify such terms. Referring to previous judgments, the court upheld the importance of strict compliance with Scheme provisions and directed the petitioner to seek remedy under the CGST Act, ultimately dismissing the petition and emphasizing the limitations of judicial intervention in these circumstances.

---

---

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.

---