TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a letter from the Respondents asking it to remain present for recording of the statement. During the recording of the statement, and on understanding the liability of short payment of service tax of Rs. 43,37,865/-, the Petitioner paid Rs. 18,26,253/- for the period April 2012 to June 2017 and informed the Department in respect of the same. According to the Petitioner, thereafter, there was no demand for the period April 2012 to June 2017 for any short payment of service tax from the Respondents. 5. In the meantime, the Central Government introduced the Sab Ka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("Sabka Vishwas Scheme") to bring an end to pending litigation under the erstwhile indirect tax regime. On 8th December 2019, the Petitioner filed Form SVLDRS-1 under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme to bring an end to the investigation initiated by the Respondents wherein the Petitioner declared the tax dues as Rs. 43,37,865/-. 6. As per the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, within 30 days of the declaration in Form SVLDRS-1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were required to issue Form SVLDRS-2 and call the assessee for a personal hearing if the amount declared by the assessee in Form SVLDRS-1 was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of Form SVLDRS-3 due to bona fide reasons, i.e., due to a technical glitch in the internet banking system which did not process the Petitioner's payment on 18th November 2022. She submitted that, since there was a bona fide reason for the Petitioner making the said payment belatedly by one day, the Respondents ought to have accepted the said payment and issued the SVLDRS-4 Discharge Certificate. In support of her submissions, she relied upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in L.G. Chaudhary vs. Union of India 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 174 (Guj.) and a decision of this Court in Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) 6 Centax 31 (Bom.). 13. On the other hand, Ms. Bhakti Date, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that it is a settled position of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular scheme like the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, had to abide by the terms and conditions of the said Scheme scrupulously. She submitted that, if the time limit provided under the said Scheme is extended, it would tantamount to modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government. She submitted that the Petitioner ought not to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticularly, in time of Covid-19 Pandemic. 10. The basic object of the Scheme is to reduce litigation by allowing the eligible assessee to make the payment of the outstanding dues after availing the relief under the Scheme. As per the provisions of the Scheme, respondent No. 2 has issued a statement as provided under section 127 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act (No .02), 2019 determining the amount payable by the petitioner under the Scheme. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner made bona fide attempt to make the payment as determined under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the Scheme along with interest for the period for which the petitioner was not permitted to make payment by respondent authorities considering extreme Pandemic condition of Covid-19, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Yashi Constructions (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the petitioner made a bona fide attempt to mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 is already over, and no case is made out by the Petitioner for issuance of any direction. The learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has not made payment within the extended period. 10. As regards the eligibility of the Petitioner 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....technical reasons from making the said payment on 18th November 2022. Further, the bona fides of the Petitioner are demonstrated by the fact that, on the very next date, i.e., on 19th November 2022, the Petitioner again attempted to make payment and in fact was able to make payment. In other words, due to the said technical glitch, the Petitioner made payment belatedly by one day. In our view, in these circumstances, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Gujarat High Court and of this Court clearly apply to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner's payment under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme ought to be accepted by the Respondents. 19. As far as the Order of the Supreme Court in Yashi Constructions (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondents is concerned, same reads as under: "Order - It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme, i.e., within 30 days. 2. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a per....