TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Senthil Nathan For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the Order-in-Original No.54 of 2020 ADC, dated 31.12.2020 and quash the same and thereby direct the first respondent to enable the link in the relevant portal (CBIC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess had been shut down. The petitioner sent a representation dated 15.06.2020 requesting further time for making payment. It appears that the petitioner had sent reminders dated 29.10.2020 and 26.12.2020. However, no extension has been given. During the interregnum, the second respondent has passed the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 31.12.2020. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the lock down imposed by the Government due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and therefore, the respondents should be directed to settle the case under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019. 6. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the aforesaid Scheme is a time bound Scheme which ought to have been complied by the petitioner i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficers acting under the Act cannot deviate. Therefore, the second respondent has now passed the impugned order. 9. The petitioner has to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner by filing suitable appeal under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 on pre-deposit of 7.5% of the service tax demanded. The only option is available to the petitioner to approach the Director of Central Board ....