TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the letter bearing C. No. IV/04/08/2019 DWD6 dated 24.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-'B') and letter bearing File No. GEXCOM/TECH/ST/343/2021-CGST-RANGE-D-WEST-DIV-6-COMMRTE-BENGALURU(W) dated 12.3.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-'C') iii) Pass such other order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2019 passed by the respondents, the petitioner submitted Form SVLDRS - 1 on 31.12.2019 seeking benefit of the said scheme. In pursuance of the same, the respondents issued Form SVLDRS-3 dated 01.02.2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,171.20/- for the purpose of availing the benefit of the SVLDRS. Subsequently, the attempts of the petitioner to make payment on 30.06.2020 having failed due to technical glitches in the web portal of the respondents, the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 Central Government issued a Notification dated 14.05.2020 extending the time for payment under SVLDRS up to 30.06.2020. The said Notification was followed by the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, extending time limit under Section 127 (5) up to 30.06.2020 and enacted in terms of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 dated 29.09.2020. 5. On 30.09.2020, the petitioner remitted the aforesaid amount specified in SVLDRS-3, pursuant to which, the jurisdictional officer issued a letter dated 11.11.2021 calling upon the petitioner to comply with the demand made in the Order-in-original which was followed by the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 which is assailed in the present petition. 6. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmittee (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 entitled to make payment up to 30.06.2020. In this context, it is relevant to state that on account of the prevailing covid-19 pandemic, the Apex court extended the period of limitation in the following orders; Supreme Court limitation order dated: 23.03.2020 "This court has taken suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/ applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the Covid-19 and the drastic surge in the number of Covid cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: (i) Allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23-3-2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] ; and (ii) Allow the present application by restor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one 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, in terms of which, demands had been raised for various periods. 2. In the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2942 of 2021, an application was filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 for settlement of disputes under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. An application in Form SVLDRS-1 was made on 17.12.2019 and on 28.02.2020, SVLDRS-3 determining the amount payable at a sum of Rs. 29,61,717/- came to be issued by the respondent. 3. The petitioner appears ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the Finance Act. In fact, the said Act has also made certain amendments in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, in Chapter-IV. Thus, the intention of the legislation is to extend the time limit for compliance or completion of certain acts under the Statute, which have been listed therein, and the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has also been amended by extending the time limit. Since Chapter-V of the Act, which deals wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 has duly complied with the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.06.2021 in W.P.No.14454 of 2020. 2. The petitioner is a former partner of the company which has since been dissolved in the year 2019. He has exercised option under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 vide application reference ARN LD2812190000261 dated 28.12.2019 toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 amount and he was under bona fide impression that due date would be extended till 30.09.2020 by the 1st respondent vide Notification dated 27.6.2020, but later he came to know that no such extension beyond 30.6.2020 was made. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has immediately filed a Writ Petition in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue 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 rejected the same and directed the petitioner to pay entire dues with penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 14454 of 2020, wherein, this Court, vide order dated 21.06.2021 directed the petitioner to remit the amount under the scheme at Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 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 Notification dated 31.12.2019. Thereafter, with regard to payment of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Court has no hesitation to direct the respondent to issue Form SVLDRS-4 to discharge the tax liabilities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 intimated the same to the first respondent about the said payment vide letter dated 02.03.2021. However, the second respondent vide imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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 would refer to the decisions of this Court in "N. Sundarrarajan versus Union of India and others" (W.A. No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent 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 Notification dated 31.12.2019. Thereafter, with regard to payment of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 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 involves designing, fabrication, procurement, installation, etc. 4. On 22nd May 2018, Respondents initiated an enquiry against Petitioner alleging short payment of service tax amounting 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 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt 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 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 1^st 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 Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 o....