TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 of the Constitution of India, for the following substantive reliefs: "a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to open the portal or take the amount by any other means and settle the petitioner dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. b) Issue direction to the respondents not to dismiss the application under the scheme of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for nonpayment of the challan deposit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019." 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- Company is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods. The petitioner was regularly f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P-5) on 28th January, 2020, wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,90,646/-. After receiving SVLDRS-3 on 28th January, 2020, the petitioner tried to generate online challan, but, due to technical error, the portal was unable to generate the challan. When, the efforts were made to generate the challan, the following message was flashed on the website: "There is something wrong while processing the request please contact our support team." 5. Although, the said problem is stated to have been resolved on 28th February, 2020, but, when the petitioner- Company again tried to generate the challan, they received a message that period of 30 days for making the deposit had already expired. The petitioner-Company tried t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27 of the Finance Act of 2019 read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019. 9. As per the provisions of Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner-Company was required to pay the outstanding tax dues electronically, within thirty days from the date of issuance of SVLDRS-3. However, the petitioner-Company has failed to pay the amount estimated by the Designated Committee and made effort to put the blame on technical issues. The said Scheme was extended up to 30th June, 2020 vide Notification, dated 14th May, 2020, but, the petitioner-Company again failed to discharge the tax dues, even after the extension of the last date to deposit the dues to resolve the case. 10. Elaborating thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny could not deposit the amount within a period of thirty days, on account of the alleged technical glitch. This statement was issued on 28th January, 2020. Meaning thereby, the amount, as mentioned in this document, was to be deposited within a period of thirty days, i.e., on or before 27th February, 2020. 16. The e-mail (Annexure P-6) pointing out the alleged technical glitch was made on 28th February, 2020, on 05.48 p.m. This e-mail was forwarded to the authorities, after the expiry of period, as per Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019. 17. There is nothing on the record to show that any efforts were made by the petitioner-Company to discharge the tax liability, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as the observations made by the High Court to the effect that the High Court cannot, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India extend the period under the Scheme, 2019, to some extent the High Court is right. The High Court while 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nical glitch, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, when, the other similarly situated declarants have made the payment online, then, accepting the said plea is not justifiable. 22. Moreover, as per the case set up by the petitioner, the SVLDRS-3 was issued on 28th January, 2020. As per Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner- Company was required to pay the amount payable, as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee, electronically, through internet banking, within a period of thirty days, from the date of issuance of such statement. 23. Admittedly, this amount has not been deposited within the stipulated time and the first communication, which was made by the pe....