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 respondents failed to rebut this. Given the petitioner's expressed willingness to pay and precedent from a coordinate bench permitting payment to secure SVLDRS benefits on identical facts, the court held the petitioner should not be denied scheme benefits. The application was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to make payment and avail the SVLDRS relief.

---

---

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.

---