TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; B. Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to deposit the determined amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 along with such rate of interest as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court; C. Directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 29.06.2020, 25.09.2020, 29.12.2020, 25.03.2021, 05.06.2021 and 12.08.2021 made by the Petitioner addressed to the Respondents." 2. The Government of India launched a scheme called as "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short 'SVLDRS, 2019') as a one time measure for liquidation of legacy disputes of Central Excise and Service Tax. 3. The petitioner opted the scheme and filed a declaration dated 15.01.2020. In the declaration, the petitioner declared an amount of Rs. 1,13,65,141/- under the category of 'arrears-appeal not filed or appeal having attained finality' in respect of order dated 15.01.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Shimla. 4. The Designated Committee after verification of the aforesaid declaration issued Form SVLDRS-3 to the petitioner on 13.03.2020 whereby the petitioner was required to pay an amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the judgment in the said case was not on the point of extension of time under SVLDRS,2019, but was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as is evident from paras 4 to 9 of the judgment which read as under:- "4. The admitted position is that the petitioner awes certain amount to the Government of India on account of settlement of certain dispute which was resolved under the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019" (in short, SVLDRS)" vide Finance Act No. 2, 2019 under which the petitioner is supposed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,36,844.40/- which the petitioner had agreed to pay by way of instalments, though it was rejected by the authorities. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was to make payment by 1 July, 2020. Unfortunately, according to the petitioner, the Covid pandemic struck because of which not only the petitioner's enterprise but also functioning of the many offices of the Government including of the Respondents had been disrupted and, as such, the petitioner could not make the payment. Subsequently, however, when the opportunity came for the petitioner to make payment, the authorities informed the petitioner that the portal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the authorities agree. 9. It is made clear that till payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,36,844.40/- within the aforesaid 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as regards the said amount." 12. Now, adverting to the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Agroha Electronics's case (supra), wherein time to deposit the amount was extended by the Court. 13. However, a contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of the same High Court in M/s Akshay Dan Charan's case(supra) where the petitioner therein had challenged the recovery notice dated 14.08.2020 and claimed benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 Scheme and the learned Division Bench observed as under:- "The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the businesses of providing construction services in respect of commercial / Industrial buildings and civil structures etc., for which purpose, the petitioner has made registration under the Services Tax Regime. For the period of financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Service Tax Department was of the opinion that the petitioner was providing taxable services in the form of coal handling and stacking, but on which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the scheme for extending the time limit for making the payment. In fact, the scheme clearly envisages that upon termination of the said period, the scheme would come to an end. That being the position, on the grounds stated by the petitioner, an order for extension of the scheme cannot be granted." 14. Now, adverting to the judgment in P. Sikkandar's case (supra). It needs to be noticed that the order dated 08.01.2021 as passed earlier in that case, and strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, was subsequently recalled by the said Court (Madras High Court) vide subsequent order dated 30.03.2021 which reads as under:- "PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to extend the provisions Sections 6 & 7 of the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 so far as it relates to Chapter V-SVLDRS, 2019 relating to payment of estimated amount determined by the Designated Committee so that the petitioner company can pay the said amount on or before 30.12.2020 and consequently directing the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment which reads as under:- "This writ petition has been filed to seek direction on the respondents for consideration of case of the petitioner under the scheme "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019" (for short "Scheme of 2019"). It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the NCLT and by operation of law, petitioner was unable to make the payment under S.V.L.D.R.S. on or before 30th June, 2020 to take the benefit of Scheme of 2019. In fact, petitioner was restrained to make the payment by operation of law and when he was in a position to make the payment subsequently, it was not to be accepted for consideration of a case under the Scheme of 2019. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection on the prayer made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Scheme of 2019 was operational till 30th June, 2020. The Committee is no more exist for consideration of the case and otherwise the payment, as envisaged under the Scheme of 2019, was to be paid in terms of it. Admittedly, petitioner has failed to make the payment as per Scheme of 2019 within th....