TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Though served, no one appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this matter, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Hetvi H. Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers: "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by DGCEI to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,22,37,824/- should not be demanded and recovered from the firm. 7. Pursuant to such notice, the adjudicating authority passed the order-in-original dated 25.01.2017 confirming the demand of service tax. 8. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the cum duty benefit as contracts awarded by the Indian Railways prior to 01.07.2012 were inclusive of all taxes. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the application window for filing a declaration under Sabka Vishwas Scheme was opened on the SVLDRS portal on 01.09.2019 on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of the petitioner that without considering the clarification made by the petitioner, the Designated Committee issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 06.03.2020 stating that the amount payable to avail benefit of Sabka Vishwas Scheme shall be Rs. 56,32,061/- after considering the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 4,86,851/- instead of Rs. 30,36,101/-. 16. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter to the department on 07.06.2021 stating that they are ready to settle the dispute and requested the department to issue fresh SVLDRS-3 after considering the pre-deposit amount at Rs. 30,36,101/- followed by reminder letters on 18.06.2021 and 25.06.2021 requesting the respondents to consider SVLDRS application filed by them. 17. Respondent no. 2 thereafter is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 30,36,101/- against the liability of Rs. 1,22,37,824/- which can be verified from the record. The petitioner therefore, filed Form SVLDRS-2A. However, the respondent by issuing Form SVLDRS-3 called upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 56,32,061/-. 23. It was therefore, submitted that the Designated Committee was required to take into consideration the amount already deposited by the petitioner and the petitioner was only required to pay the amount of Rs. 30,82,811/-. It was submitted that the petitioner is also ready and willing to pay the interest from 01.07.2020 till the date of payment on the said amount. 24. It was further pointed out that inspite of repeated reminders, the Designated Committee has failed to consider the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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. 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 person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the the prerogative of the Government." 27. It was therefore, submitted that no interference is c....