TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit the service tax for the relevant year(s), though the petitioner services come within the meaning of 'commercial training and coaching service'. 2. The show cause notice dated 13.06.2018 was issued to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to show cause why service tax, Cess etc., as indicated in the show cause notice should not be levied and demanded from the petitioner. 3. After the GST regime was put in place, to reduce the tax litigation in respect of indirect taxes, Government came out with notification No. 5 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 and framed rules governing the Scheme as "SUBKA VISHWAS" [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules, 2019. Under Rule 3, an applicant is required to file a Declaration in Form No. SVLDRS-1 wherein th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticulars of the amount payable: [3]:... [6]: ..... Rule 7: Form and manner of making the Every shall declarant pay payment:- electronically the amount, as indicated in Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the designated committee within a period of thirty days from the date of its issue." 5. The petitioner decided to avail the benefit under "SUBKA VISHWAS" [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules, 2019, therefore, the petitioner uploaded SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020. The petitioner had computed the amount payable under the Scheme as Rs. 13,895/-. The designated committee constituted under Rule 5 considered the petitioner's Form SVLDRS-1 and issued SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 mentioning payable amount as Rs. 13,895/- under the Scheme by the petitioner. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inability to make payment within the time provided due to technical glitches and also brought to their attention the order of the Supreme Court extending - suo motu- time limit in the light of Covid Pandemic. Adjudication of the show cause notice proceeded with by the 2nd respondent who finalised the order on 30.11.2021. As per the adjudication order, the petitioner is liable to make the payment of Rs. 13,44,668/- by way of service tax along with penalty under Section 78 and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents after they filed SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020 and they could notice the SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 only on the website of the CBIC. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... days got expired on 18.03.2020. However, the date for making the payment was extended up to 31.03.2020, and thereafter up to 30.06.2020 as per the Supreme Court order. But the petitioner did not make the payment. There is no proof of 'technical glitches' which prevented the petitioner from making the payment of Rs. 13,895/-. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the show cause notice was issued and adjudication has taken place. The petitioner instead of filing the appeal has approached this court invoking the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not maintainable against the order of adjudication. The petitioner may file the appeal, if he is aggrieved by the order of adjudication. 12. The learned counsel for the revenue has plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02.2020 or till the extended time, which he failed to do so. 15. Once the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme, which is a complete code in itself, this court would not like to extend the limitation for making the payment under the scheme in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In an identical matter, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave petition against an order of the jurisdictional High Court refusing to extend the time under the scheme for making payment as per SVLDRS-3. In Yashi Construction (supra), the short order of the Supreme Court reads as under:- "1. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within t....