TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....setting aside the order of the Designated Authority (Respondent no. 3) in the Form of SVLDRS-3 (Annexure - A) made under Sabka Visvas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 thereby directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to treat the declarations/ applications filed by the petitioners under Sabka Vishvas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 valid and accept the calculation submitted by the Petitioner in its Form SVLDRS-1 as sufficient compliance of the Scheme, and issue final discharge certificate under Form SVLDRS-4; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct Respondent no. 3 to issue fresh challans to make a deposit of Rs. 1,22,381/- and direct them to issue SVLDRS - 4, which will be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps in respect of the tax dues of Rs. 22,18,148/-; (D) xxx xxx xxx. (E) xxx xxx xxx." 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate, Mr. Utkarsh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 17.03.2008 and thereby confirmed the demand of Rs. 22,18,148/- along with penalty of an equal amount of Rs. 22,18,148/- under Section 11AC of the Act of 1944 against the petitioner no. 1 - Company, whereas a personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner no. 2 and interest thereon was also ordered under Section 11AB of the Act of 1944. 5.5 It is stated that thereafter, the petitioners filed appeal before the first Appellate Authority. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 - Company was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the petitioner no. 2 was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- for hearing of the appeals on merits, however, the petitioners did not comply with the said order dated 19.11.2008 and, therefore, the appeals filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the first Appellate Authority. 5.6 It is stated that the petitioners, thereafter, filed appeals along with stay application before the Appellate Tribunal, where at the stage of hearing of stay application, vide order dated 11.11.2009, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner no. 1 - Company to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.01.2020 and, thereafter, the petitioners visited the office of the concerned respondents and requested them to reconsider the issue. 5.10 It is also stated that there was no response from the office of the respondent authority from January, 2020 and, thereafter, the Government of India has declared lockdown and because of which, the office of the petition no. 1 was closed till June, 2020 and, therefore, the petitioners could not make contact with the office of the concerned respondent authority. 5.11 It is also stated that the declarant was required to pay electronically through internet banking, the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of such statement, however, the said provision was amended and, thereafter, the concerned declarant was required to make such payment on or before 30.06.2020. 5.12 It is also stated that since the beneficial scheme was to get over with regard to payment on 30.06.2020 i.e. the last date of the payment, the petitioner sent the said amount through its bank, however, the said amount was returned to the petitioner no. 1's account for the reasons 'CPIN ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired" and, hence, a request was made to issue fresh challans, however, the request of the petitioners has not been accepted. It is, therefore, submitted that thus because of the technical error, amount was not credited in the account of the respondent though sent in time by the petitioner and, hence, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of L.G. Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in 2022 (67) GSTL 174. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present petition. Learned Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and submitted that the petitioners submitted declaration in the prescribed form on 23.12.2019 as per Scheme, 2019, in which, it was pointed out that for basic excise duty of Rs. 22,18,148/-, the petitioners have made pre-deposit of Rs. 24,12,196/- and the said form being SVLDRS-1 was sent for verification to jurisdictional aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon the petitioner no. 2 and further interest thereon was also ordered under the provision of the Act of 1944. Against which, the petitioners filed appeal before the first Appellate Authority and the first Appellate Authority directed the petitioners to make pre-deposit of a particular amount, however, the said order was not complied with and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. It further transpires that the petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal along with stay application and during the hearing of stay application, learned advocate for the petitioners willingly submitted before the Tribunal that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit another amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the penalty. Thus, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners, directed the petitioners to deposit further amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- within stipulated time, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No. 31 of the compilation. 11. Thus from the aforesaid aspects, it is clear that the petitioners paid total amount of Rs. 19,12,196/- towards the duty and, thereafter, voluntarily made stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: Provided that if the amount of pre-deposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant, as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund." 13. Thus from the aforesaid provision of the Scheme, 2019, it is clear that where the tax dues are relatable to an amount in arrears and the amount of duty is Rs. 50,00,000/- or less then, 60% of the tax dues are required to be paid under the Scheme, 2019. Thus, relief to the aforesaid extent is available to the declarant. 14. Further sub-clause (2) of Clause 124 further provides that the relief calculated under subsection (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellant proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime upto 30.05.2020. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that by Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 dated 31.03.2020, the date of payment under the Scheme, 2020 was extended upto 30.06.2020. It transpires from the record that during that extended time i.e. 30.06.2020, the petitioners sent Rs. 1,22,381/- through internet banking, however, the said amount was returned with reason "CPIN is expired". 18. Thus from the aforesaid facts of the present case, it is revealed that the petitioners have tried to make the payment as demanded by the respondent no. 3 on the last date of Scheme, 2019 i.e. on 30.06.2020, however due to technical reason, the said amount was not transferred to the account of the respondent no. 3. 19. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in case of L.G. Chaudhary (supra), wherein this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 as under, "8. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was required to make the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- as determined in Form SVLD....