TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to call for the records relating to the order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 dated 03.02.2022 and quash the same, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to accept the payment of Rs. 1,51,797.20/- under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and to issue discharge certificate in form SVLDRS -4 in respect of the arrears payable by the petitioner. 2.This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1803 of 2021 to direct the respondents 1 to 3 therein to accept the payment of Rs. 1,51,797.20/- paid by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 3.The said scheme was announced by the Parliament in the Finance Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. An order came to be passed on 29.03.2021, which ultimately culminated in an order dated 28.06.2021 of the 2nd respondent under the aforesaid scheme. The petitioner therefore filed the second writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.17748 of 2021 to quash the aforesaid communication dated 28.06.2021 of the 2nd respondent. After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed as under:- "20.But it is to be noted that, in order to establish the bonafide on the part of the petitioner, on the next day, that is, on 01.07.2020, the petitioner made further attempt to make the payment of Rs. 1,51,797.20/~and this amount, infact has been debited from the account of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.All these transactions, which are reflected in the statement of account of the petitioner show that,. the petitioner did make attempt to make the payment as per the scheme, and because of the technical glitches, if the said payment made by the petitioner has not been accepted by the account/website or whatever the E~Governance platform or web portal of the revenue, the blame cannot be put against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court feel that, the request of the petitioner can be reconsidered and hence, the present impugned order, reiterating the earlier reasons stated in this regard once again, despite the direction given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, cannot be justifiable. 24.In view of the above, this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain categories of defaulters and chronic defaulters to settle the dispute by paying a percentage of the disputed tax of the penalty. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10571 of 2020 (Agroha Electronics, Prem Nagar, Rajasthan Vs. Union of India, through Secretary, New Delhi and other), dated 25.03.2021 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.14454 of 2020 (N.Sundararajan Vs. Union of India, New Delhi and others) dated 29.06.2021. 10.Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid scheme was a time bound scheme and since the petitioner failed to pay the amount in time as per the scheme and as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has incidentally also clarified on 17.03.2021, vide its instructions No.01/2021-CX bearing F.No.267/41/2021-CX-8. The Board has clarified that henceforth all references for grand of approval of manual processing of declaration need not be made to the Board and such cases can be processed manually by the concerned designated committees upon the fulfilment of the following conditions:- "i) The order of the Hon'ble High Court has been accepted by the concerned Commissionerate. ii) The Ld ASG/ Sd. Counsel who had represented the case before the Hon'ble Court has opined to accept the said order of the Hon'ble Court." 15.The scheme is intended to allow chronic defaulters to pay the amount and buy peace. The delay....