2024 (6) TMI 585 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner allowed to pay and claim Sabka Vishwas (SVLDRS) benefits after technical glitch caused non-payment; notices set aside

HC allowed the challenge to notices issued under the Sabka Vishwas scheme, finding the petitioner's non-payment resulted from a technical glitch and that ... Challenge to letters issued by Deputy Commissioner under Sabka Vishwas Scheme - Failure to make the payment of the amount mentioned in SVLDRS-3 form - HELD THAT:- The Respondents having not rebutted the averments made by the Petitioner which states that on account of technical glitch, the Petitioner could not make the payment and a grievance was raised by the Petitioner with the Respondents on this count and the admitted fact, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply that Petitioner is willing to make payment, in our view the Petitioner should not be denied the benefit of the SVLDRS when no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is justified in relying upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of JJAI SAI RAM MECH & TECH INDIA P. LTD., VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, JOINT COMMISSIONER SABKA VISHWAS COMMITTEE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE OF PALGHAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE OF PALGHAR. [2024 (4) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein on identical facts situation this Court had permitted declarant to make the payment and avail the benefit of SVLDR scheme. There are no reason for taking a different view. Application disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to letters issued by Deputy Commissioner under Sabka Vishwas Scheme for non-payment of demand raised in Order-In-Original.Summary:The petitioner challenged letters from Deputy Commissioner directing payment of demand raised in Order-In-Original due to non-payment under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner, engaged in technical testing services, filed a declaration under the scheme in 2019. Despite generating a challan for payment within the stipulated time, technical glitches prevented actual payment. The petitioner sought relief based on similar cases where relief was granted. The respondents argued that non-payment within the prescribed time disqualifies the petitioner from the scheme, citing relevant legal precedents. The court examined the facts, including technical issues faced by the petitioner, and noted the respondents' admission of difficulties faced by declarants. The court found in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that no fault could be attributed to them for non-payment. Legal precedents supported the petitioner's position, distinguishing the cited cases based on technical glitches. The court ordered the quashing of the letters and directed the respondents to accept payment and issue the necessary certificate within specified timelines.The court found in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that no fault could be attributed to them for non-payment. Legal precedents supported the petitioner's position, distinguishing the cited cases based on technical glitches. The court ordered the quashing of the letters and directed the respondents to accept payment and issue the necessary certificate within specified timelines.