TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice etc. has its registered office at Vadodara. It was duly registered under service tax regime vide Service Tax No. AAUCS0863JLD001. 3. The order in original on 13.3.2019 issued by respondent no.4 directed the petitioner to pay the service tax amounting to Rs 3,60,502/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with the applicable interest and penalty. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate authority where the final hearing was scheduled on 9.7.2019. 5. In the meantime Sabka vishwas scheme Rules, 2019, SVLDRS was notified through the Finance Act, 2019 as one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of Central Excise, Service Tax and other 26 indirect tax enactments. 6. The petitioner had wanted to avail the benefit of the scheme and therefore, it filed an application in form SVLDRS -1. On 21.1.2020, the petitioner received a notice under Section 127 wherein it was asked to submit the documents in respect to whether final hearing of appeal was held before 30.6.2019. On 11.2.2020 the petitioner was intimated that the personal hearing was scheduled on 14.2.2020 and on 12.2.2020, the petitioner was asked to pay the amount of Rs 81,050.60 for ful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections, writs or any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; (d) To award costs of and incidental tot his application be paid by the respondents; 9. Affidavit-in-reply has already come on the record contending therein that petitioner was already intimated by issuing the SVLDRS 3 by designated committee of the department that his case would fall under the litigation category hence, an amount of Rs 81,050.60/- is needed to be paid by the petitioner for full and final settlement of tax dues amounting to Rs3,60,502/- . The petitioner made the payment on 8.7.2020 after specified due date and therefore the certificate SVLDRS-4 was not issued. Recovery made by the respondent department and the non-issuance of SVLDRS-4 had resulted into this petition and refund of the amount. It is mphatically urged that the petitioner never informed the then SVLDRS committee about his re-creditance on account of there being any technical glitch and it was on account of the bank not the department. The due date being 8.7.2020, the payment ought to have been made successfully by 8.7.2020or any date therea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it had twice been recredited in his account and therefore, for the third time, it needed to make a payment and by then, the time limit prescribed had already been over. 16. We need to take note of the order in case of M/s Yashi Contructions (supra) in SLP No. 2070 of 2022 where the Apex Court while endorsing the refusal of the relief by the High Court for extension of period to make the deposit under the scheme, held that the settled proposition of law is that the person who wants to avail the benefit of a particular scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the scheme. If the time extended is not provided under the scheme, it will then tantamount to modifying the scheme which is the prerogative of the government. Here is not the case where any extension sought for not having been granted where request on the part of the petitioner would also not tantamount to modifying the scheme as he was never at fault. Twice when he made an attempt, he failed on account of technical glitch . 17. In the decision, this Court in the case of M/s L. G. Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (Coram : Mr. N. V. Anjaria and Mr. Bhargav Karia J.J.)dated 14.10.2022, the Court having considered the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is squarely covered by the decision where also the petitioner made bonafide attempt to make the payment within the stipulated time period. However, due to some technical issues, the amount was not credited in the account of the respondent. 19. In the case of M/s Shekhar Resorts Ltd. Vs Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 8957 of 2022 , it was the case where the petitioner was asking to be considered under the scheme Sabka Vishwas ( Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 . The Service Tax Department conducted investigations as to the evasion of service tax by the appellant and issued the show cause notices demanding the payment of service tax. The proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021 were initiated against the appellant company. The matter was admitted and the application filed by the Financial Creditors of the appellant under Section 7 of the IBC then initiated the process from 11.9.2018. The Corporate insolvency Dissolution process had commenced and the appellant was subjected to moratorium under Section 14 of the IPC. The scheme came to be introduced from 1.9.2019 under Section 125 of the Finance Act. The appellants sought t....