TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter 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 petitioner paid the said amount to the respondents on 01.10.2020. It is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner 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 petition is opposed by the respondents who contend that since the petitioner did not deposit / pay the amount indicate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt; (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 law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or state). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective courts/Tribunals acro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 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 restoring the order dated 27-4-2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373]; and (iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Takin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2020, 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 to have faced some difficulty in meeting the deadline under the Scheme, particularly, the deadline requiring full payment of the amount to be made on or before 30.06.2020. However, gathering its resources, it was in a position to remit the amount a month later on 30.07.2020 and has written to the officer expressing readiness to settle the amount and seeking clarity on whether the amount woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 with relaxation of time limit under Indirect Tax Laws, which stipulates four Tax Laws, which includes Finance Act, 1994, we will be well justified in holding that the time limit for completion of the payment of taxes, as quantified in Form-3, also stood extended till 30.09.2020. If that is the date on which the appellants were required to complete the payment, then the appellant's conduct in approaching this Court by filing the wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 towards the demand of Service Tax raised by the fourth respondent vide Order No. 08/2019 dated 23.5.2019. The third respondent accepting the petitioner's application dated 28.12.2019 issued order SVLDRS Form-3 on 27.02.2020 quantifying the payable amount at Rs. 3,17,090/- payable on or before 30.06.2020. However, according to the petitioner, due to COVID pandemic, the petitioner closed down the business and was unable to mobilise the requisite amount for payment by 30.6.2020. Further the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner 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 W.P.No.14454 of 2020 on 28.09.2020, seeking a direction to the 1 st respondent to accept the payment of Rs. 3,17,090/- in terms of SVLDR Scheme Form -3 and this Court also vide order, dated 21.06.2021 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,17,090/- along with interest at 15% computed from 01.07.2020 till date within a period of one week and accordingly, the petitioner also made payment of Rs.3,63,870/- vide challan dated 22.6.2021 and reported to this Court and taking note of the same, vide order dated 29.06.2021, disposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent 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. 3,17,090/- along with interest at 15% from 01.07.2020 till the date of payment. 10. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had remitted the amount by way of challan on 25.06.2021. Taking note of the payment, this Court vide order, dated 29.06.2021 disposed of the above said Writ Petition with the following observation: "3. I see no reason to keep this writ petition pending any more in the light of the position that the petitioner has, according to it, remitted the balance of the amount under its declaration. The petitioner is permitted to make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 under the said scheme, in terms of the intimation provided by the respondent to the petitioner, the said time limit was extended up to 31.12.2020 by virtue of the Notification No. 450/61/2020. 17. Under these circumstances, since the Central Government was delegated with power to fix the time limit for availing the scheme and for making the payment, the Central Government came with the Notifications and provided time limit for the same and the said time limit was extended from time to time due to COVID pandemic. Even according to the petitioner, the said scheme was extended upto 30.09.2020 for makin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 order. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2021 is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue discharge certificate to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed." 10.3 In R.R. Housing's case supra, the Madras High Court held as under:- "This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to consider the payment made by the petitioner dated 1.3.2021 as payment under SVLDRS Scheme and also direct the first respondent to issue discharge certificate in form SVLDRS 4 to the petitioner. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k 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 impugned proceedings dated 2.3.2021, directed the petitioner to pay the entire arrears confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2019. Hence the Writ Petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it is stated that the SVLDR Scheme provided full waiver of interest and penalty when the payments are made as determined by the Designated Committee set up for scrutinizing the declaration filed under SVLDR Scheme within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of Form SVLDRS-3. In the present case, Form SVLDRS-3 was issued on 13.2.2020 and the due payment as per the Scheme is on or before 15.3.2020, but the petitioner failed to pay the dues and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 would refer to the decisions of this Court in "N. Sundarrarajan versus Union of India and others" (W.A. No. 2097 & 2098 of 2021, judgment dated 26.08.2021); "M/s. N.S. Rathinam and sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Dindigual and others" (W.P.(Md)No. 29269 of 2022, order dated 05.06.2023); "M/s. Apnaa Projects Pvt.Ltd., versus Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and others" (W.P.Nos.19919 of 2020, etc., order dated 08.09.2022). 7. On other hand, Mr. Rajendran Raghavan, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has failed to make the payment on or before 30.06.2020 and therefore, cannot get the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. He would further submit that it is settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheme 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 under the said scheme, in terms of the intimation provided by the respondent to the petitioner, the said time limit was extended up to 31.12.2020 by virtue of the Notification No. 450/61/2020. 13. Under these circumstances, since the Central Government was delegated with power to fix the time limit for availing the scheme and for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis making the payment, the Central Government came with the Notifications and provided time limit for the same and the said time limit was extended from time to time due to COVID pandemic situation. Even according to the petitioner, the said scheme was extended upto 30.09.2020 for making the payment by virtue of the Notification dated 27.06.2020. 14. Therefore, it is clear that the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. 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 of notifications. When that being the case, the Department is supposed to have extended the time at par with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it had considered the difficulties faced by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis public in mobilizing the money, filing the cases before the Courts, etc., and granted the time limit up to 28.02.2022. However, though the respondent-Department had considered and issued the notifications on 3 occasions, thereafter, they had neither considered the difficulties faced by the Assessee nor issued any notifications extending the time limit for making payment of tax under the scheme. 19. In the present case, the tax was paid by the petitioner on 02.03.2021 based on the Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the Department and the same was accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 SVLDR Scheme was extended to 30th June 2020 on account of global covid pandemic. Petitioner, therefore, regenerated the challan for making the payment. The challan so generated stated that it would expire on 1st July 2020 at 12:00 a.m. Petitioner made the payment of Rs. 12,82,356/- pursuant to the said challan on 1 st July 2020 at around 01:00 p.m. However, Respondents refused to issue final certificate in form SVLDRS 4 on the ground that the payment has been made after 30th June 2020 and, hence, Petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of the Scheme. Consequently, Respondents called upon Petitioner to make the payment of service tax liability along with interest and penalty. It is on this backdrop that Petitioner has challenged the rejection of SVL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emini 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 person. This appears to have been necessitated as the levy of Central Excise and Service Tax has now been subsumed in the new GST Regime. From a reading of the statement of object and reasons, it is quite evident that the scheme conceived as a one time measure, has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand. Both are equally important: amicable resolution of tax disputes and interest of revenue. As an incentive, those making the declaration and paying the declared tax verified as determined in terms of the scheme would be entitled to certain benefits in the form waiver of interest, fine, penalty and immunity from prosecution. This is the broad picture the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 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 rejected by the respondents is by stating that the same was beyond the maximum time limit of 30.06.2020 as per the Notification dated 14.05.2020 referred to supra. However, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court with regard to extension of limitation referred to hereinbefore and the aforesaid judgments of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court granting the benefit of the SVLDRS in favour of the petitioner / assessees therein on the ground of the prevailing covid-19 pandemic even in cases where payments were made subsequent to 30.06.2020, I am of the view that the impugned Endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the concerned respondents to accept the payment made by the petitioner and i....