2024 (12) TMI 533 - HC - Service Tax

Karnataka HC accepts delayed payment under Sabka Vishwas Scheme citing COVID-19 pandemic impact and limitation extensions

M/s. Kivi Sansho Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (Presently M/s. Shyamaprabha Smartpack Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Union of India, Commissioner of Central Excise Mangaluru, Additional Commissioner, Office of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangaluru, The Superintendent, Central Excise And Central Tax (GST), Udupi.

Karnataka HC quashed an endorsement rejecting petitioner's payment under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme made on 30.09.2020, beyond the ... Seeking quashing of the impugned Endorsement passed by the 3rd respondent - seeking direction to the respondents to accept payment paid by the petitioner towards Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, Rules, 2019 - petition is opposed by the respondents who contend that since the petitioner did not deposit / pay the amount indicated in SVLDRS-3 on or before the last date i.e., 30.06.2020, the respondents were fully justified in issuing the impugned Endorsement, thereby denying the benefit of SVLDRS in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned Endorsement does not warrant interference in the present petition. HELD THAT:- The undisputed material on record will indicate that pursuant to the application in Form SVLDRS-1 submitted by the petitioner, the respondents issued Form SVLDRS-3, pursuant to which, the petitioner was entitled to make payment up to 30.06.2020. In this context, it is relevant to state that on account of the prevailing covid-19 pandemic, the Apex court extended the period of limitation in [2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER]. So also, under identical circumstances, the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court have held that though the Notification dated 14.05.2020 extended the time limit for payment under the SVLDRS up to 30.06.2020, having regard to the prevailing covid-19 pandemic, the petitioners-assessees therein would be entitled to extension of time in Apnaa Projects’s case [2022 (9) TMI 1003 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], N. Sudararajan’s case [2023 (11) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Cradle Runways’s case [2024 (8) TMI 155 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. A perusal of the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-D dated 13.01.2022 will indicate that the sole ground on which the payment made by the petitioner on 30.09.2020 was rejected by the respondents is by stating that the same was beyond the maximum time limit of 30.06.2020 as per the Notification dated 14.05.2020. However, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court with regard to extension of limitation and the judgments of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court granting the benefit of the SVLDRS in favour of the petitioner / assessees therein on the ground of the prevailing covid-19 pandemic even in cases where payments were made subsequent to 30.06.2020, it is opined that the impugned Endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the concerned respondents to accept the payment made by the petitioner and issue a discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 within a stipulated timeframe. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, the effect of the covid-19 pandemic and the orders of the Apex court extending period of limitation have not been considered in the said judgments and consequently, no reliance can be placed upon the said judgments by the respondents in support of their defence. The impugned Endorsement at Annexure–D dated 13.01.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed - Respondent No. 3 is directed to accept payments vide Annexures – B and B1 made by the petitioner on 30.09.2020 towards SVLDRS Scheme and proceed to take necessary steps to issue the Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the impugned Endorsement dated 13.01.2022.2. Acceptance of payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS), 2019.3. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the extension of limitation periods.4. Reliance on judgments from higher courts regarding extension of limitation periods.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the Impugned Endorsement:The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned Endorsement dated 13.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, which rejected the payment made by the petitioner under the SVLDRS scheme. The court found that the rejection was based solely on the ground that the payment was made beyond the deadline of 30.06.2020, as stipulated in the Notification dated 14.05.2020. However, the court determined that this reasoning did not consider the extensions granted by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic, which extended the limitation period for various legal proceedings. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned Endorsement.2. Acceptance of Payment under SVLDRS:The petitioner made a payment of Rs. 7,27,224.10 on 30.09.2020 towards the SVLDRS scheme. Despite the payment being made after the stipulated deadline, the court ruled in favor of accepting the payment, considering the extraordinary circumstances presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court directed the respondents to accept the payment and issue a discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4, thereby allowing the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme.3. Impact of Covid-19 on Extension of Limitation Periods:The court took into account the Supreme Court's orders, which extended the period of limitation for various legal proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic. These orders were crucial in determining the outcome of the case, as they provided a basis for extending deadlines that were otherwise fixed by statutory provisions. The court highlighted that the pandemic created unprecedented challenges, and the extension of limitation periods was a necessary measure to ensure fairness and justice.4. Reliance on Judgments from Higher Courts:The petitioner relied on various judgments from the Supreme Court, Madras High Court, and Bombay High Court, which supported the extension of time limits during the pandemic. The court acknowledged these judgments, noting their relevance in the context of the case. The court emphasized that the extension of limitation periods was a well-established principle during the pandemic, as evidenced by the judgments cited by the petitioner. Conversely, the court found that the judgments relied upon by the respondents did not adequately consider the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods. As a result, the court did not place reliance on these judgments in support of the respondents' defense.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned Endorsement, and directed the respondents to accept the payment made by the petitioner under the SVLDRS scheme. The court's decision was significantly influenced by the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods during the Covid-19 pandemic and the supporting judgments from other high courts. The court's ruling ensured that the petitioner could benefit from the SVLDRS scheme, despite the payment being made after the original deadline, due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.