Directory payment timeline under Sabka Vishwas scheme; discharge certificate could not be denied after compliant payment.

Time prescribed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for payment of the quantified amount was treated as directory because the scheme empowered extension of timelines by notification and the period had in fact been extended, including during the pandemic. As the declarant had already been accepted under the scheme and later remitted the amount pursuant to judicial direction, rigid insistence on the original deadline was held unjustified. The rejection of the representation and refusal to issue Form SVLDRS-4 were set aside, and the authorities were directed to treat the payment as valid and issue the discharge certificate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the time prescribed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for payment of the quantified amount was directory and capable of extension in the facts of the case; (ii) whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation and the refusal to issue Form SVLDRS-4 were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the time prescribed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for payment of the quantified amount was directory and capable of extension in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Scheme was introduced under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and the Central Government was empowered to prescribe and extend the time limits for availing the Scheme and making payment through notifications. The time for making payment had been extended from time to time, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the circumstances, the Court treated the time prescription for payment as directory rather than mandatory, particularly where the petitioner had already availed the Scheme, the declaration had been accepted, and payment was ultimately made pursuant to an earlier court order.

Conclusion: The time limit for payment was held to be directory and capable of being acted upon in the petitioner's favour.

Issue (ii): whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation and the refusal to issue Form SVLDRS-4 were sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioner had complied with the earlier judicial direction by remitting the quantified amount with interest, and the subsequent representation was required to be considered in that light. The Court found that the impugned rejection was contrary to its earlier orders and that the respondent ought to have accepted the payment under the Scheme and issued the discharge certificate. The refusal to issue Form SVLDRS-4 was therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to issuance of Form SVLDRS-4.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in securing acceptance of the declaration under the legacy dispute resolution scheme, and the respondents were bound to treat the payment as valid for discharge of the service tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme empowers the Government to extend the time for payment and the declarant has substantially complied pursuant to judicial directions, the payment timeline may be treated as directory and the discharge certificate cannot be denied on a rigid technical view of delay.

---