2023 (5) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d April 2016 to June 2017. Thereafter, pursuant to certain calculation sheets it was demonstrated that Petitioner had paid Rs. 54,67,432/- vide challans and Rs. 3,43,865/- from CENVAT credit account. Petitioner had quantified the amount of service tax payable for the said period to Rs. 67,27,500/-. Petitioner submitted that out of the tax liability only balance of Rs. 9,16,203/- was payable. Petitioner's statement with respect to this liability was recorded on 5 February 2019 during the course of investigation. 4. On 1 September 2019, the Central Government introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("SVLDR Scheme") to bring an end to pending litigation under the indirect tax regime. Petitioner took advantage of this scheme and filed SVLDRS-1 on 30 December 2019 for the period April 2016 to June 2017 declaring Rs. 9,16,203/- as tax dues. As noted above on 23 February 2020, Form SVLDRS-3 was issued to Petitioner directing payment of Rs. 2,74,860/- to avail the benefit under the scheme. In compliance thereof Petitioner generated mandate form (Challan) from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) portal. Petitioner could not visit the bank to ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tel Orient Taj) Vs. Union of India and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8957/2022 dated 5 January 2023 and decision of this Court in the case of Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Writ Petition No. 2998 of 2021 dated 17 January 2023 in support of his contention. 8. Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel for Respondent Authorities refers to and relies upon the affidavit in reply dated 6 April 2022. Learned Counsel for Revenue reiterates that Petitioner has failed to make the payment on or before 30 June  2020 and therefore can not get the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. Learned Counsel refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India and Ors. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070/2022 and submits that it is settled proposition 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. He submits that not only the time to make the payment has expired long back the Scheme is also over now. That the Court cannot defer the date for payment/modify the Scheme. This is a prerogative of Government. 9. We have heard Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel for the Pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the Scheme. However, in the present case it is not a case of extension of the Scheme by the High Court; It is a case of taking remedial measures. It is not a case where the appellant did not make any application within the stipulated time under the Scheme. This is not a case where the Form No.3 determining the settlement amount was not issued during the validity of the Scheme. It is not a case where the appellant deliberately did not deposit the settlement amount and/or there was any negligence on the part of the appellant in not depositing the settlement amount within the stipulated time. As observed hereinabove it is a case where the appellant was unable to make the payment due to the legal impediment and the bar to make the payment during the period of moratorium in view of the provisions of the IBC. In a given case it may happen that a person who has applied under the Scheme and who was supposed to make payment on or before 30.06.2020, became seriously ill on 29.06.2020 and there was nobody to look after his affairs and therefore he could not deposit the amount; such inability was beyond his ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er to avail the benefit of the Scheme of 2019 is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Form SVLDRS-3 was issued to the Petitioner. The fact that the period to deposit the amount was extended to 30 June 2020 is not in dispute. The Petitioner has placed on record the documents received from the Bank which shows that the Petitioner on 24 June 2020 had made payment of Rs. 7,69,317/- and the Petitioner has placed on record the Bank statement and RTGS slip acknowledgment of the Bank confirming the payment made out of which SMS was received from the Bank. In the reply affidavit, these facts have not been disputed. 11. In the case of M/s. L.G.Chaudhary (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat considered the identical situation where the Petitioner therein tried to make the payment through NEFT as per Form SVLDRS- 3 on 30 June 2020 and because of the technical problem on the part of the Bank, the payment was returned to the Petitioner. The Division Bench considered the law on the subject and the argument of the Respondents that the payment was not made within the time. The Court held that since the Petitioner therein made bona fide attempt to make payment within the stip....