TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sri. V. Raghuraman, learned Senior counsel appointed as Amicus curiae along with learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, an Order-in-original having been passed against the petitioner, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority which confirmed the original order on 08.02.2017 by dismissing the appeal as time barred. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 20282/2017 which was allowed by this Court vide final order dated 23.10.2017 by condoning the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits in accordance with law. Meanwhile, by Notification dated 21.08.2020, the Central Government notified the SVLDRS, pursuant to which, the petitioner filed an application in Form SVLDRS-1 on 28.11.2019 in relation to which, the respondents issued Form SVLRDS-3 under which, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 7,27,224/- on or before 28.02.2020 to avail the benefit under the scheme. 4. Subsequently, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Vs. Union of India - (2023) 13 Centax 337 (Mad.); (v) R.R. Housing India Pvt Ltd Vs. Designated Committee (SVLDRS), Coimbatore - (2024) 14 Centax 15 (Mad.); (vi) Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors. - 2024 (8) TMI 155 - Bombay High Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- (i) M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India - SLP (C)No.2070/2022 - Apex Court; (ii) M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India - WT No. 541/2021 - Allahabad High Court; (iii) M/s. J. Sourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Designate Committee (SVLDRS) - W.P.No.2456/2022 dated 29.09.2022 -Karnataka High Court; (iv) M/s. Coach India Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax - W.P.No.20999/2022 dated 19.01.2024 -Kerala High Court; (v) M/s. ELTEL Engineering Vs. Union of India - W.P.No.1562/2022 dated 20.02.2023 - Madhya Pradesh High Court. 9. The undisputed material on record will indicate that pursuant to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before courts/tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15-3-2020 till further orders. On 8-3-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] , the order dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15-3-2020 and 14-3-2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15-3-2021. 3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in Covid-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (Scaora) intervened in the suo motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23-9-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947], wherein t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 28-2-2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by the learned Senior Counsel, MA No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. 10. So also, under identical circumstances, the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court have held that though the Notification dated 14.05.2020 extended the time limit for payment under the SVLDRS up to 30.06.2020, having regard to the prevailing covid-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021]. Those writ appeals had been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.06.2021 who had dismissed writ petitions seeking extension of the period for remittance on par with the extension granted by the Income Tax Authorities. 7. To be noted that, Schemes for settlement of legacy arrears had been notified both under Direct and Indirect Tax statutes. However, there had been a variation between the final dates for receipt of payments under the two Schemes. While the Scheme in the context of Income Tax, permitted remittance till 30.09.2020, the Scheme under the Indirect Tax Laws permitted settlement only till 30.06.2020. 8. The Court was persuaded to observe at Para 5, extracted below, that the time limit should be on par for both Schemes. If this were so, it would enable an assessee who expresses readiness to make the payment prior to 30.09.2020, to avail the benefit of the Scheme under Indirect Taxes as well. '5.Thus, in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter-V of the Finance Act for completion of certain actions as stipulated under Chapter-V, stood extended till 30th September, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly, proceed to apply in the present writ petition as well. 11. In the facts and circumstances in W.P.No.2942 of 2021, since the petitioner has admittedly approached the respondents and expressed its readiness to remit the amount on 31.07.2020, it is entitled to extension of time and is permitted to make the remittance along with interest @ 15% from 01.07.2020 to date of remittance, that must be within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, for which purpose, the website shall be enabled forthwith. Accordingly, W.P.No.2942 of 2021stands disposed as aforesaid. 12. However, since the petitioner in W.P.No.19919 of 2020 has taken necessary steps only in October, 2021 far beyond the extended time period and that too, only tentative, the benefit cannot be extended to this petitioner. The mandamus as sought for is thus rejected and W.P.No.19919 of 2020 is dismissed. 13. W.P.No.17428 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. 14. No costs in any of the writ petitions. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 10.2 In N. Sudararajan's case supra, the Madras High Court held as under:- "This Writ Petition has been filed,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within four weeks. However, the Board, vide letter in File No. CBIC-90224/3/2021-O/o-US(CX-VI)-CBEC dated 27.08.2021, rejected the representation. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has exercised option under SVLDR Scheme under which, a sum of Rs. 3,17,090/- has been quantified, but the petitioner has not paid the due amount even within the extended time granted upto 30.06.2020. As per Circular No.1071/42019-CX 8 dated 27.8.2019, if the declarant does not pay within the stipulated time, due to any reason, the declaration will be treated as lapsed. As regards the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14454 of 2020 is concerned, it is stated that since this Court only directed the Board only to consider the application under SVLDR Scheme and not directed specifically to accept the application. Since the petitioner has not made payment within the stipulated time, the declaration filed by the petitioner has been treated as lapsed and consequently, the petitioner is liable to pay original demand along with penalty and interest. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions of the scheme scrupulously. He pointed out that as there was no statutory provision to make any payment under the scheme beyond the stipulated period and once the petitioner failed to make the payment within the due date, he is not eligible to get the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. He also submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents considered the representation made by the petitioner and rightly rejected, which requires no interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record. 8. In the present case, it is clear that by virtue of the Finance Bill, 2019, the SVLDR scheme was declared. Thereafter, the respondent had issued Notification No. 04/2019 dated 21.08.2019 stating that the Assessees can avail the said scheme from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019. Subsequently, by virtue of Notification No. 07/2019 dated 31.12.2019, the said period to avail the scheme was extended up to 15.01.2020. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had availed the scheme before 15.01.2020 and filed F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court had accepted the plea raised by the petitioner and permitted to make payment under SVLDR Scheme and after payment, directed the Board to consider the representation of the petitioner for acceptance of the payment under SVLDR Scheme and pass appropriate orders. It is a positive order and no contrary view could be taken, however, the respondents passed impugned order, which in the opinion of this Court, is unreasonable and cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 13. Thereafter, the respondent was supposed to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to discharge the entire liabilities towards tax under the said Scheme. However, the same has not been issued so far. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that the petitioner had availed the scheme within the prescribed time and hence, they had issued Form SVLDRS 3. However, though the intimation in Form SVLDRS 3 was issued on 13.02.2020, the demanded tax amount was paid only on 25.06.2021, which is beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, they are not in a position to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to the petitioner to discharge the tax liabilities. 15. Further, the learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidering the COVID pandemic situation. 20. Further, there is no doubt that if the provisions are mandatory in nature, this Court normally will not interfere and pass orders against the said substantive provisions of law. Since the provisions are directory in nature, based on the prevailing situation and the inability of the petitioner due to the said pandemic would be the factors that have to be considered by this Court to pass an appropriate order. In the present case, no doubt that the petitioner had paid the amount on 25.06.2021 during the pandemic period by virtue of the Court order. Under these circumstances, certainly, this Court can interfere and look into the grievances of the petitioner and if this Court is satisfied, this Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 21. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 27.09.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 844 of 2022, was also placed before this Court, wherein the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the extension of time for making payment under the Scheme, was challenged. The said judgement dated 27.09.2023 was dismissed in the SLP stage itself witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le the disputes relating to legacy laws, viz., Service tax, Central Excise Duty, etc., which are pending at various levels, by filing a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 in the electronic portal. The petitioner opted to file a declaration under SVLDRS Scheme in respect of the Service Tax dispute and settle the same and accordingly filed declaration, upon which, the Designated Committee, after verifying form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner, issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 13.2.2020. As per the Scheme, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.14,98,835.20 on or before 14.03.2020. In the mean time, the Government, considering the pandemic situation, has extended the time limit for making payment under the Scheme upto 30.06.2020. However, the petitioner could not pay the tax dues on or before 30.06.2020 due to financial crisis faced by them on account of lock down owing to pandemic situation. 4. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its Suo Motu W.P. No. 3/2020, vide order dated 23.3.2020, has extended the period of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of limitation prescribed under General or Special laws with effect from 15.2.2020 till further orders. Therefore, the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt extended the time limit for making payment under the scheme till 30.06.2020. However, due to financial crisis suffered by the petitioner due to lock down owing to pandemic, the petitioner could not make the payment. He would contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, vide order, dated 23.3.2020, has held that the period of limitation in all proceedings irrespective of limitation prescribed under General or Special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended with effect from 15.3.2020 till further orders. He would also submit that subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4085 of 2020 vide order dated 17.12.2020, held that the period of limitation which was extended earlier vide order dated 30.06.2020 is still operative. Therefore, the learned counsel would point out that since the petitioner has already filed a declaration under SVLDR Scheme and obtained Form SVLDRS-3, however due to financial crunch suffered by the petitioner owing to pandemic situation, failed to make the payment of quantified tax arrears in time and despite requesting to grant time, the 2nd respondent, by the impugned order, date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irtue of Notification No. 07/2019 dated 31.12.2019, the said period to avail the scheme was extended up to 15.01.2020. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had availed the scheme before 15.01.2020 and filed Form SVLDRS 1. The said Form was accepted and further, the Form SVLDRS 3 was also issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 13.02.2020. However, due to the COVID pandemic situation, the petitioner had remitted the demanded tax amount only on 02.03.2021 through a regular challan. Thereafter, the respondent was supposed to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to discharge the entire liabilities towards tax under the said Scheme. However, the same was not issued. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that the petitioner had availed the scheme within the prescribed time and hence, they had issued Form SVLDRS 3. However, though the intimation in Form SVLDRS 3 was issued on 13.02.2020, the demanded tax amount was paid only on 02.03.2021, which is beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, they are not in a position to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to the petitioner to discharge the tax liabilities. 11. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the extension....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the COVID pandemic situation. 16. Further, there is no doubt that if the provisions are mandatory in nature, this Court normally will not interfere and pass orders against the said provisions. As far as if the provisions are directory in nature, certainly the prevailing situation and the inability of the petitioner due to the said pandemic would be the factors that have to be considered by this Court to pass an appropriate order. In the present case, no doubt that the petitioner had paid the amount on 02.03.2021 during the pandemic period. Therefore, under these circumstances, certainly, this Court can interfere and look into the grievances of the petitioner and if this Court is satisfied, this Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 17. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 27.09.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 844 of 2022, was also placed before this Court, wherein the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the extension of time for making payment under the Scheme, was challenged. The said judgement dated 27.09.2023 was dismissed in the SLP stage itself without assigning any reasons. Further i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21. The petitioner is directed to pay interest at 15% p.a. on 14,98,836/- from 01.07.2020 till the date of payment, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the benefit granted under this order will automatically cease to operate. On such payment being made by the petitioner, the respondents are to issue discharge certificate to the petitioner. No costs." 10.4 In Cradle Runways's case supra, the Bombay High Court held as under:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges communication dated 6th September 2021 issued by Respondent No. 5 directing Petitioner to pay whole of service tax liability along with interest and penalty. According to Respondent No. 5, Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legal Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS) because tax dues as per the said scheme was paid on 1st July 2020 which is after due date of 30th June 2020. 3. Petitioner is engaged in business of providing solutions for accessing all kinds of facades which invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtificate in SVLDRS 4 Form. Those are:- (i) Innovative Antares Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023-TIOL-160-HC-MUM-ST, (ii) Arjun Rampal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023-TIOL-672-HC-MUM-ST, (iii) Sitec Labs Ltd. Vs. Union of India Writ Petition No. 828 OF 2021, (iv) Reliance Infrastructure Vs. Union of India 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 25 (Bom.). 7. Per contra, Respondents have opposed the petition on the ground that admittedly there is a delay of one day in making the payment by Petitioner and, therefore, this Court should not entertain the present petition. Respondents have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors. SLP/2070/2022, in support of this submission and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner CGST & Ors. WP/6488/2022 dtd. 4th November 2022 Respondents have further submitted that the challan under which payment is made by Petitioner is not a challan under SVLDR Scheme but a service tax challan and, therefore, Petitioner could not contend that the payment has been made under SVLDR Scheme. Respondents have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....generated stated the expiry date as 1st July 2020. Petitioner was, therefore, under a bona fide belief that he could make the payment on 1st July 2020 which admittedly he has paid on said date. 11. In our view, therefore, on the facts of the present case denying the benefit of SVLDR Scheme would not only be contrary to the objective of the Scheme, but also would be injustice to Petitioner declarant who otherwise is eligible. The decision relied upon by Respondents in Yashi Construction (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the case before the Supreme Court, the payment was not made on account of financial constrain, whereas in the case before us the payment has been made but on account of technical glitch could not be made on 30th June 2020, but was made on 1st July 2020. Respondents have also not refunded the said amount till today thereby accepting the payment. 12. Petitioner is justified in placing reliance on decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Innovative Antares (supra), Arjun Rampal (supra) and Sitec Labs Ltd. (supra), wherein on similar facts and after considering the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Y....