SVLDR Scheme dispute over reversed RTGS payment due to expired challan; relief granted and discharge certificate ordered

Denial of relief under the SVLDR Scheme on the ground that payment could not be credited due to expiry of the mandate/challan was held unsustainable where the assessee had initiated payment by RTGS within the prescribed period, but the amount was later reversed and refunded solely because of an expired challan, without any fault attributable to the assessee. Applying the SC's approach that a declarant cannot be penalised for failure caused by technical/system constraints beyond its control, the HC held that technical reversal could not defeat the scheme's remedial object of resolving legacy disputes. The authorities were directed to accept the quantified amount pursuant to the SVLDRS-3 and, upon payment, issue the discharge certificate; the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to regenerate challan/mandate form.
2. Denial of benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme).
3. Technical error due to expiry of challan.
4. Legal precedents and applicability of judgments.

Summary:

1. Failure to Regenerate Challan/Mandate Form:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the failure of the Respondent-Authorities to regenerate a challan/mandate form for payments pursuant to Form SVLDRS-3 issued on 23 February 2020. The petitioner, engaged in providing professional services, had quantified the service tax payable and sought to benefit from the SVLDR Scheme by filing SVLDRS-1 on 30 December 2019, declaring Rs. 9,16,203/- as tax dues. Form SVLDRS-3 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,74,860/-.

2. Denial of Benefit Under SVLDR Scheme:
Due to the nationwide lockdown, the petitioner could not visit the bank to make the payment, which led to the reversal of the RTGS payment due to an expired challan. Despite multiple attempts and communications with the Respondent Authorities, the petitioner was unable to regenerate the challan. The petitioner argued that the benefit of the scheme was being denied due to a technical error.

3. Technical Error Due to Expiry of Challan:
The petitioner contended that the reversal of the payment was due to the expiry of the challan, a technical error for which the petitioner was not at fault. The petitioner cited legal precedents to support the claim that the benefit should not be denied due to such technical issues.

4. Legal Precedents and Applicability of Judgments:
The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, where it was held that the appellant could not be punished for not doing something impossible due to legal impediments. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India extended the time to deposit the amount under the SVLDR Scheme due to non-issuance of a new challan.

Judgment:
The court considered the facts and legal precedents, noting that the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme due to a technical issue of reversal of the amount paid before 30 June 2020. The court allowed the petition and directed the Respondent-Authorities to permit the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,74,860/- under the SVLDR Scheme and issue the necessary discharge certificate. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---