TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and claiming to be a subsidiary of one Interdrill (Asia) Ltd., is before the Court interalia praying that the respondents hold the petitioner to be entitled to avail the benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short "SVLDR Scheme"). The petition was permitted to be amended to incorporate an additional prayer. The prayers as made in the writ petition are required to be noted, which reads thus: a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to allow the petitioner to file its claim under the correct category under the SVLDR Scheme; a-1) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside Order dated 9th July, 2019 and hold that the said Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt on September 23, 2015. 3. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner regularized its service tax returns and filed the same for the period from October, 2010 to March, 2015 on December 26, 2015. It is stated that the petitioner had made a total payment of Rs. 75,29,209/towards service tax upto January 7, 2016. As the petitioner could not clear the entire outstanding payment and as the petitioner was in default, the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Raigad vide order in original dated March 16, 2018 confirmed the outstanding duty amount of Rs. 1,36,21,188/- payable under the show cause notice dated February 15, 2016 and further levied various penalties/charges totaling to Rs. 53,57,184/-. 4. The petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which indicated tax dues after tax relief at Rs. 34,80,876.60. According to the petitioner, it was eligible under section 123(1) of the SVLDR Scheme and accordingly, it had filed its declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 albeit in terms of SVLDRS Rule 3(2)(b) under the 'arrears of taxes' category. The petitioner's SVLDR-1 form was considered by respondent no. 1 and was assessed to tax dues payable at Rs. 40,20.877/- after considering the deposits made in the past of Rs. 94,38,319/- as contained in form SVLDRS-3 dated February 5, 2020. Thereafter, a challan was generated for payment of Rs. 40,20,877/- on or before March 31, 2020. It is the petitioner's contention that under the SVLDR Scheme read with SVLDR Rules, a declaration can be made by person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired by the time the petitioner realized its mistake. 8. The petitioner has contended that the last date for making payment of the tax dues, under SVLDR Scheme was June 30, 2020 by which date the petitioner could not make payment. It is also contended that the petitioner could have saved considerable amount of tax if the petitioner was allowed to change the category under the SVLDR Scheme. Thus, the petitioner was caught in a situation where the petitioner had no option left, but to make payment of tax dues of Rs. 40,20,877/- as per Form SVLDR-3 on or before June 30, 2020. However, the petitioner could not make payment of tax dues before the cut-off date for number of reasons, which according to the petitioner reflected on the financial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y from the date of receipt of the order in original. The petitioner also refers to the note on the order-in-original which is in Hindi intimating the petitioner that an appeal could be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order in original. Thus, the petitioner's contention is of an ex-facie error committed by the Commissioner in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within 90 days and there was a delay of 3 days. The petitioner also contends that the appellate authority also did not consider the delay condonation application of the petitioner. The petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that the covering note enclosing the order-in-original as served on the petitioner, apart from the note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30, 2020, which the petitioner did not make. The petitioner had inadvertently filed its declaration under SVLDR Rule 3(2)(b), i.e., amount in arrears, instead of SVLDR Rule 3(2)(a), which is under the category where the show cause notice of one or more appeals is pending as on June 30, 2019. It appears to us that such mistake was a bonafide mistake of having filed the 'SVLDR form' under a wrong category. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme, if any other conditions under the scheme are being fulfilled by the petitioner. 13. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent n....