TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 application in Form SVLDRS-1 submitted by the petitioner, the respondents issued Form SVLDRS-3, pursuant to which, the petitioner was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the courts/tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021. 4. The present miscellaneous application has been filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys, 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 pandemic, the petitioners-assessees therein would be entitled to extension of time in the following judgments. 10.1 In Apnaa Projects's case supra, the Madras High Court held as under:- "The petitioners in these writ petitions are assessees under the Central Excise Act, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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, 2020, and Section 6 of the Act deals with two situations, namely, period for completion and period of compliance. Therefore, the said provision has to be given a liberal interpretation and if we do so, the time limit for payment of taxes can be construed to be a time limit for completion of particular act, as stipulated under Chapter-V of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.07.2020 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, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents vide letter CBIC 90224//3/2021-C/O US (CX-VI)-CBEC dated 27.08.2021, quash the same and direct the respondents to issue discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 determining the said amount paid as determined under SVLDRS Form-3 No. L270220SV300892 dated 27.02.2020 since the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount 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. 4. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed the declaration under SVLDR Scheme well within the time and the same was also accepted by the respondents and issued SVLDRS Form-3 and the due date for payment was extended till 30.06.2020. But due to pandemic situation, the petitioner could not mobilize the funds to pay the quantified tax a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly 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 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. 9. According to the petitioner, they could not make the payment within prescribed time limit due to financial crisis faced by them on account of lock down owing to COVID 19 pandemic situation. Though, the petitioner had requested for extension of time by way of representation, the respondents have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 counsel would contend that the extension was granted only upto 14.03.2020 and hence, any payment made after the said period will not be considered or appropriated under the said scheme and the same would be appropriated only against the original tax due. 16. The SVLDRS scheme was originally brought in vide the Finance Bill, 2019 and by virtue of the said Finance Bill, the power was provided to the Central Government to issue notification with regard to the fixation of time limit to avail the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount 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 without assigning any reasons. Further no submission was made as to whether the provision is mandatory or directory before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under the said circumstances only, the aforesaid dismissal order was passed. However, the said aspect was pressed before this Court. 22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the application, filed on 13.02.2023 consequent to the payment made by the petitioner, has to be accepted under the SVLDRS scheme by the respondent and in such view of the matter, this Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 petitioner, vide letter dated 30.6.2020 requested the Superintendent, SVLDRS Section to grant some more time to make payment of Rs.14,98,835.20 since they are facing major financial crunch due to pandemic and lock down. However, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 18.2.2021, directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount demanded along with penalty which works out to Rs. 1,08,29,431/-. According to the petitioner, they paid Rs. 14,98,836/- on 01.03.2021 as determined under Form SVLDRS-3 through regular challan, as SVLDR Scheme portal was closed after 30.06.2020 and int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat 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, dated 18.2.2021, directed the petitioner to pay entire dues at Rs. 1,08,29,431/-. He would further submit that on 01.03.2021, the petitioner made payment of arrears of tax at Rs. 14,98,836/- determined under Form SVLDRS-3 by way of regular challan and intimated the same to the first respondent. However, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 02.03.2021, confirmed the order of the 1st respondent and directed the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of tax, which cannot be sustained and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme. Further, in support of his contentions, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 was granted only upto 14.03.2020 and hence, any payment made after the said period will not be considered or appropriated under the said scheme and the same would be appropriated only against the original tax due. 12. He would also submit that the scheme was originally brought in vide the Finance Bill, 2019 and by virtue of the said Finance Bill, the power was provided to the Central Government to issue notification with regard to the fixation of time limit to avail the said scheme and make payment. Due to the reason of COVID pandemic, the time limit for availing scheme was extended upto 15.01.2020 by virtue of Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 it is clear that no submission was made as to whether the provision is mandatory or directory before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under the said circumstances only, the aforesaid dismissal order was passed. However, the said aspect was pressed before this Court. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the time limit up to 28.02.2022, even where the limitation was fixed under the mandatory laws. Further, as discussed above, there is no doubt that the provision of fixing time limit under the SVLDRS Scheme is directory in nature and that is the reason why the Department had extended the time limit for payment of tax amount under the SVLDRS Scheme by virtue o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued 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 involves designing, fabrication, procurement, installation, etc. 4. On 22nd May 2018, Respondents initiated an enquiry against Petitioner alleging short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 32,05,890/- tax for the period April 2017 to June 2017. 5. On 31st December 2019, Petitioner filed Form SVLDRS 1 for availing the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and declared Rs. 32,05,890/- as amount of tax dues. On 22nd February 2020, Respondents issued Form SVLDRS directing Petitioner to make payment of Rs. 12,82,356/- to avail the benefit of the scheme. Petitioner generated challan on the portal for making payment which challan expired on 31st March 2020 but Petitioner did not make any payment. Meanwhile, payment to be made under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 petition. 8. There is no dispute that Petitioner is otherwise eligible to make a declaration under SVLDR Scheme. The only issue which arises for our consideration is whether payment made on 1st July 2020 can be said to have been made as per SVLDR Scheme. 9. The objective of SVLDR Scheme has been culled out by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Capgemini Technology Services India Limited Vs. Union of India (2020) 121 taxman.com 107 (Bom.), wherein the High Court has observed as under:- "From the above, we find that as a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of Central Excise and Service Tax, the SVLDR Scheme has been issued by the Central Government. The SVLDR Scheme has also been issued to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by an eligible perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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. Yashi Constructions (supra) directed revenue to accept SVLDRS declaration when payment could not be made due to technical glitch before 30 June 2020 in contrast to decision of Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Dinesh Kumar Yadav (supra). We are bound by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 13. In the light of above, we pass the following order:- (i) Communications dated 6th September 2021 and 27th September 2021 are quashed and set aside. (ii) Respondents are directed to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order. (iii) Petition disposed". 11. A perusal of the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-D dated 13.01.2022 will indicate that the sole ground on which the payment made by the petitioner on 30.09.2020 was re....