TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Payment Deadline Upheld: Court Dismisses Challenge to Recovery Order under SVLDR Scheme</h1> <h3>M/s Dinesh Kumar Yadav Through Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Versus Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise, Designated Committee SVLDRS Through Its Authorized Officer, Superintendent CGST Range II</h3> M/s Dinesh Kumar Yadav Through Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Versus Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise, Designated Committee SVLDRS Through Its ... Issues:Challenge to recovery order under SVLDR Scheme of 2019 for failure to pay service tax by the last date.Analysis:The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the recovery order seeking payment of service tax under the SVLDR Scheme of 2019. The petitioner failed to pay the discounted amount of service tax by the last date of 30.06.2020, resulting in the recovery order dated 08.02.2022. The petitioner contended that due to technical issues and the pandemic, the payment was delayed but was eventually made on 01.07.2020. The petitioner argued that despite paying the rebated service tax, the recovery order was still issued. The petitioner relied on a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench to support the argument that the SVLDR Scheme should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee.The Revenue, on the other hand, denied the petitioner's contentions and stated that despite multiple opportunities to pay the rebated amount by 30.06.2020, the petitioner failed to do so. The payment was made on 02.07.2020, after the last date, rendering the petitioner liable for the normal rate of service tax. The Revenue cited a decision by a Coordinate Bench to argue against extending the last date for payment, emphasizing that such an extension would go against the terms and conditions of the Scheme.The Court, after hearing both parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition. The Court noted that the previous decision cited by the petitioner did not address the issue of extending the last date for payment. It was established that all attempts to pay by 30.06.2020 had failed, and the payment made on 01.07.2020 was after the statutory deadline. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court and a previous decision of the Court, the petition was dismissed without costs, based on the principles established in those cases.
TaxTMI 