2024 (3) TMI 803 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner's Request for SVLDRS 2019 Payment Extension Denied; Court Stresses Deadline Adherence Over Hardship Claims.

The HC dismissed the petitioner's request for acceptance of balance payment under the SVLDRS, 2019, and issuance of SVLDRS Form 4. The court emphasized ... Accepting the balance payment as per the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) Form 3 - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the petitioner has not made balance payment of Rs. 12,32,643/- within the extended period of time. The petitioner has also not pointed out any circumstances which suggests that the petitioner was under severe financial crunch as canvassed before the respondents authorities in the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashi Constructions [2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] that the time limit cannot be extended by the Court as the same would amount to modifying the scheme, it is only the respondent authority or the Government can extend the time, which is already extended during the COVID-19 pandemic upto 30th June 2020 and later on, upto 30th September 2020. This petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Issues involved:The petitioner seeks acceptance of balance payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) and issuance of SVLDRS Form 4 for final settlement.Summary:The petitioner initially filed a declaration under SVLDRS Form 1, believing their appeal was pending, but upon realizing it was disposed of, submitted a revised declaration with correct details. The respondents issued SVLDRS Form 3 for balance payment. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner failed to pay within the specified time frame or the subsequent extensions.A previous court order allowed the petitioner to make representations to the authorities, citing relevant judgments. The petitioner submitted detailed representations with supporting documents, but the authorities rejected them, citing non-compliance with payment deadlines and lack of adverse court orders.The petitioner, represented by Mr. Hasit Dave, argued financial constraints post-pandemic prevented timely payment, offering to pay with interest. Various court decisions were cited in support of the petitioner's case. The respondents, represented by Mr. Ayaan Patel, emphasized the petitioner's failure to meet payment deadlines and lack of evidence regarding financial difficulties.The respondents relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing adherence to scheme terms without court-ordered extensions. The court noted the petitioner's non-compliance with payment deadlines and lack of evidence of financial hardship, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court highlighted that only the authorities or the government can extend scheme deadlines, not the court.