Petitioner loses challenge after failing to deposit Rs. 89 lakh within 30-day deadline under Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019

Gujarat HC dismissed petitioner's challenge under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Petitioner failed to deposit Rs. 89,77,393.50 within mandatory 30-day period after receiving Form SVLDRS-3. Court held that strict compliance with scheme terms is required to avail benefits, and extending payment deadline would impermissibly modify the scheme. Relying on SC precedent in Yashi Constructions, court ruled that failure to meet statutory requirements bars scheme benefits. Petitioner's reliance on Bombay HC decision in Arjun Amarjeet Rampal case distinguished as involving technical glitch, unlike present case of complete non-payment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme.
3. Legal implications of failing to deposit the required amount under the scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, requesting the court to direct the respondents to consider a specific amount as pre-deposit/under protest money in accordance with Circulars issued by the Ministry Of Finance. The petitioner was involved in proceedings under the Central Excise Act, where a substantial amount was disallowed, leading to a demand for payment along with penalties and interest. The petitioner appealed to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and made a pre-deposit as required by law.

2. The petitioner claimed to have reversed wrongly availed cenvat credit and participated in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Despite the scheme's provisions, the Designated Committee issued a demand for payment, which the petitioner contested, citing entitlement to credit. The petitioner's failure to pay the demanded amount within the specified time led to the filing of the present petition.

3. The petitioner argued that the amount in question was already reversed in a previous return and should be considered as part of the deposit under the scheme. The petitioner relied on a Bombay High Court decision to support the argument that the benefit of a benevolent scheme should not be denied based on technicalities. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner did not comply with the scheme's terms and conditions, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to such requirements.

4. The court, citing the Supreme Court's stance on scheme compliance, held that allowing the petitioner to pay the amount beyond the specified date would amount to modifying the scheme, a prerogative reserved for the government. The court distinguished a previous case where non-payment was due to technical issues, emphasizing that the petitioner's failure to deposit any amount as per the scheme's requirements was a crucial factor in the decision.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to scheme conditions and denying the petitioner the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to non-compliance. The judgment highlighted the significance of timely and complete adherence to the terms and conditions of such schemes, reiterating that modifications to scheme requirements are beyond the court's purview.

---