2024 (4) TMI 236 - HC - Service Tax

Bombay HC quashes SVLDRS rejection for one-day payment delay due to banking glitch during COVID-19

Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of SVLDRS application where payment was delayed by one day due to technical banking glitch. Following ... SVLDRS - Payment was delayed by one day - The petitioner attempted to make the payment within the stipulated period but faced a technical glitch with online banking. - application of the Petitioner rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner with the reason “amount not quantified” - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case before the Gujarat High Court in M/S LG CHAUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2022 (10) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the Petitioner therein tried to make the payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3, through NEFT, on 30th June 2020, which was the last date for making payment but due to some technical glitch from the end of the receiving bank, the payment was returned to the Petitioner therein. Hence, in that case, the facts were very similar to the facts in the present case. In this factual scenario, the Gujarat High Court held in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner made bona fide attempt to make the payment as determined under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the Scheme along with interest for the period for which the petitioner was not permitted to make payment by respondent authorities considering extreme Pandemic condition of Covid-19, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the case of L.G. Chaudhary, the Gujarat High Court held that the bona fide attempt made by the Petitioner therein to make the payment could not be doubted and substantive benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme could not be denied to the Petitioner therein on the ground of procedural technicalities, more particularly in time of COVID-19 Pandamic. In the present case, the Petitioner tried to make payment within the stipulated period of 30 days from the issuance of Form SVLDRS-3, as provided under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, but due to a technical internet banking error, the Petitioner was not able to make payment on 18th November 2022, which was the last date of making payment. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was prevented due to technical reasons from making the said payment on 18th November 2022 - the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Gujarat High Court and of this Court clearly apply to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner’s payment under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme ought to be accepted by the Respondents. On a perusal of the said Order, it is very clear that and as held by the Gujarat High Court, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case where the Petitioner has made a bona fide attempt to make the payment within the stipulated time, however, due to technical issues, the same was not credited to the account of the Respondents. In fact the said Order of the Supreme Court does not at all deal with such a situation, and, therefore, is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case. Order dated 16th December 2022, rejecting the Petitioner’s SVLDRS-1 application is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Validity of rejection of the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 due to delayed payment.2. Whether a bona fide attempt to make payment under the Scheme can be considered valid despite procedural delays caused by technical glitches.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of rejection of the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 due to delayed payment.The Petitioner, a private limited company engaged in construction services, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of their application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The Respondents initiated an enquiry for the period April 2012 to June 2017, leading the Petitioner to pay part of the service tax liability. The Petitioner filed Form SVLDRS-1 under the Scheme, declaring tax dues, but the application was initially rejected without a hearing. Upon remand by the High Court, the Respondents issued Form SVLDRS-3 directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 6,51,360/-. Due to an online banking issue, the Petitioner made the payment one day late, which led the Respondents to reject the application again. The Petitioner sought quashing of this order and acceptance of the belated payment.Issue 2: Whether a bona fide attempt to make payment under the Scheme can be considered valid despite procedural delays caused by technical glitches.The Petitioner argued that the delay was due to a bona fide technical glitch in the internet banking system. The Court considered precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in L.G. Chaudhary vs. Union of India and its own decision in Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which supported the acceptance of late payments caused by technical issues. The Respondents contended that adherence to the Scheme's terms was mandatory, citing the Supreme Court's order in Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the Petitioner made a bona fide attempt to pay on time but was prevented by technical issues.Judgment:1. The Court quashed the order dated 16th December 2022, rejecting the Petitioner's SVLDRS-1 application.2. The Respondents were directed to accept the payment of Rs. 6,51,360/- made on 19th November 2022 and issue the SVLDRS-4 Discharge Certificate to the Petitioner.3. The Court emphasized that bona fide attempts to comply with the Scheme should not be penalized due to procedural technicalities, especially when technical glitches are involved.4. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.