2022 (10) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n-original dated 04.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.3- Joint Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise and letter dated 23.02.2021 issued by respondent No.4, Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in Government road construction work and also registered with Service Tax Department under the category of Industrial and Commercial Construction and Transportation of Goods by road. 5.2 The petitioner was subjected to investigation by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the transactions carried out by it from the period 2011-12 to 2014-15 for alleged evasion of service tax and violation of various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules made there under. 5.3 A show-cause notice dated 03.01.2017 was issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 5.4 During the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to the show-cause notice, Finance Act (No.2), 2019 was enacted containing the Scheme for resolution of the pending disputes with the Central Excise Department. The Scheme provided a one-time window w.e.f. 01.09.2019 to eligible persons to declare their tax dues and pay the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20 informed the respondents about the fact that the petitioner tried to make payment at various instances, but the same could not be completed due to technical issues and requested the respondents-authority to allow the petitioner to make the payment through a demand draft so as to conclude the matter. 5.13 Respondent No.3 meanwhile called upon the petitioner by letter dated 16.12.2020 in respect of show-cause notice dated 03.01.2017. The petitioner intimated the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 29.12.2020 that the petitioner has already filed a declaration under the Scheme and the attempt of the petitioner to make the payment was not successful. The petitioner again requested respondent No.3 to allow it to make payment of the dues determined in Form SVLDRS-3 through demand draft. 5.14 However, respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 adjudicated show-cause notice dated 03.01.2017 raising total demand of Rs. 1,87,36,448/- under proviso to section 73(1) along with interest and penalty under sections 75, 77(1) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5.15 Respondent No.4 on 23.02.2021 issued notice for recovery of the dues as per the order dated 04.01.2021. The petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Court to the provisions of section 127(5) which stipulates that the payment has to be made electronically through internet banking with regard to the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee within thirty days from the date of issue of such statement. It was pointed out that the petitioner could not make the payment due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation prevailing in the month of March 2020 and pursuant to the date extended by the Board upto 30.06.2020, the petitioner has already tried to make payment on 30.06.2020 which was returned by the receiving bank. It was therefore, submitted that the bank account of the petitioner has already been debited but the same was not accepted by the receiving bank and was returned. It was therefore, submitted that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to make the payment within the time. 6.3 In support of his submissions learned advocate Mr. Nainavati referred to and relied upon the following decisions: • M/s. Jai Guru Cables vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Additional Commissioner/Member of Designated Committee, The Deputy Commissioner/Member o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1135: "52. We have one more reason to take such a view. As has rightly been declared by the Hon'ble Finance Minister and what is clearly deducible from the statement of object and reasons, the scheme is a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax as well as to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by a person eligible to make a declaration. The basic thrust of the scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigations centering around service tax and excise duty. Therefore the focus is to unload this baggage of pre-GST regime and allow business to move ahead. We are thus in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Vaishali Sharma Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1529/2020 that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning." • Vaishali Sharma vs. Union of India and ors reported in 2020 (8) TMI 81 "9. In the opinion of this Court, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the Scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... particularly, when the time limit, as per the Scheme is already over on 30.06.2021. Learned advocate Mr. Lodha invited attention of the Court to the order dated 18.02.2022 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme as it is settled position of law that a person who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. The Apex Court has further held that if the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is a prerogative of the Government. The Apex Court has therefore dismissed the SLP (C) No. 2070 of 2022 filed by the petitioner. It was therefore submitted that once the extended time period for making payment was over on 30.06.2020, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deposit the amount under the Scheme because it would amount to modify the Scheme. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties, it is not in dispute t....