Revenue Authorities Must Address SABKA VISHWAS Scheme Payment Claim Despite Deadline, Court Orders Prompt Action

The HC directed the Central Revenue Authorities to consider the petitioner's representation for payment under the SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019, despite the expiration of the scheme's time limits. The petitioner had remitted the service tax dues via RTGS during the COVID-19 restrictions, believing compliance. The court emphasized the petitioner's bona fide effort and instructed the authorities to address the representation within one month. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner seeking Mandamus to direct consideration of representation for payment under SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019 and revocation of proceedings by Central Revenue Authorities.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Representation for payment under SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019
The petitioner, engaged in business services, was found due service tax by the authority before the GST regime. Subsequently, under the SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum towards service dues and penalty. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the petitioner remitted the service tax dues, believing compliance. However, a notice from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs revealed non-crediting of the amount. The petitioner then sent a Demand Draft and representation to consider the belated payment under the scheme. The respondents did not act on the representation, leading to the freezing of the petitioner's account.

Issue 2: Court's Decision
The petitioner's counsel argued the petitioner's bona fide compliance by remitting the demanded amount and willingness to pay interest. The Standing Counsel for respondents contended that the scheme's time limit cannot be extended and questioned the petitioner's awareness of the non-transfer of funds. The Court acknowledged the scheme's limited duration but directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation within one month, emphasizing the petitioner's payment made through RTGS in 2020. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---