TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms issued on 28.01.2020 (forming part of Annexure P-12 colly), 9 SVLDRS-3 Forms issued on 25.02.2020 and letter Annexure P-15 whereby the respondent department has upheld its calculations. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to re-calculate correct tax liability of the petitioner under amnesty scheme; (iv) Declare that period under Section 127 (5) of Finance Act, 2019 is directly and a declarant may deposit tax dues up to 30.06.2021; (v) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide representation letter dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure P-16) or in the alternative in view of pandemic COVID-19 spread across the country appropriately extend last date prescribed under Section 127 (5) of Finance Act, 2019. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of rendering services of hospitality by way of hotel at Shimla. The Superintendent (Prev.), Shimla vide his letter dated 08.11.2016 directed the petitioner to supply a number of documents enumerated in the said letter for the period 2011-12 to 2015-16. The petitioner supplied all the documents and the official concerned pointed out that the petitioner was not discharging due amount of service tax and, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia vide Notification No. 05/2019 Central Excise-NT dated 21.08.2019 notified Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (for short 'Rules'). 7. Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 the Petitioner filed 9 declarations under the category of investigation. As per section 121 (h) of the Act, 2019 'declarant' means a person who is eligible to make a declaration and files such declaration under Section 125. Section 124 of the Act, 2019 provides manner to calculate relief available to the declarant. According to section 124 (1) (d) of the Act, 2019 where due tax relates to enquiry, investigation (Section 121 (m) defines enquiry, investigation) or audit (Section 121 (g) defines audit), the declarant is eligible to get relief of 70% of due taxes in case amount of tax/duty is 50 Lakh or less and 50% in case due tax/duty is more than 50 Lakh. Moreso, when no "order", (Section 121 (0) defines an order), determination under any of the indirect tax enactment had been passed in relation to a show cause notice in the case at hand. 8. It is averred that as per Section 127 (5) of Finance Act, 2019 the petitioner was required to dischar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The petitioner also pointed out that it had made payments against outstanding dues and none of such payments related to specific period/year/quarter and, therefore, the amount paid by them deserves to be deducted from the net amount payable i.e. after deducting relief. 14. The respondents vide their letter dated 25.02.2020 informed the petitioner that calculation of amount to be paid is as per the provisions of law and has been checked again. The respondents further informed that 30 days period to make the payment from the date of issuance of SVLDRS-3 could not be extended so they are required to make the payment within time i.e. by 27.02.2020, failing which Form-4 would not be issued, nonetheless respondents issued fresh 9 SVLDRS-3 all dated 25.02.2020 as detailed below:- Sr. No. SVLDRS-3 No. & Date Amount Payable (') 1 L250220SV301790 - 25.02.2020 0.00 2 L250220SV301797 - 25.02.2020 0 3 L250220SV301801 - 25.02.2020 2,76,174 4 L250220SV301809 - 25.02.2020 4,80,625 5 L250220SV301818 - 25.02.2020 8,45,810 6 L250220SV301823 - 25.02.2020 5,32,804 7 L250220SV301835 - 25.02.2020 6,51,554 8 L250220SV301844 - 25.02.2020 4,42,953 9 L250220SV301840 - 25.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being in force, such appeal or reference or reply shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (7) Where the declarant has filed a writ petition or appeal or reference before any High Court or the Supreme Court against any order in respect of the tax dues, the declarant shall file an application before such High Court or the Supreme Court for withdrawing such writ petition, appeal or reference and after withdrawal of such writ petition, appeal or reference with the leave of the Court, he shall furnish proof of such withdrawal to the designated committee, in such manner as may be prescribed, along with the proof of payment referred to in sub-section (5). (8) On payment of the amount indicated in the statement of the designated committee and production of proof of withdrawal of appeal, wherever applicable, the designated committee shall issue a discharge certificate in electronic form, within thirty days of the said payment and production of proof." 17. Since there was lock-down and the petitioner was engaged in the business of rendering of the service of hospitality by way of hotel, it was not in a position to deposit a sum of Rs. 37,87,874/- by 30.06.2020, thereby constraining the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot make the payment within the prescribed time limit due to financial crisis faced by it on account of lock-down owing to COVID-19 pandemic situation. 24. It was for this precise reason that the petitioner had been requesting the respondents for extension of time to deposit the amount, but according to the petitioner such representation was illegally rejected and the petitioner was asked to remit the amount. 25. As observed above, there is no dispute that the petitioner had availed the scheme within the prescribed period and hence though it is entirely different matter that its category came to be changed from SVLDRS-1 to SVLDRS-3, as aforesaid. 26. It is yet not in dispute that the petitioner who was engaged in the hospitality business by running a hotel, was adversely affected by COVID-19. It is further not in dispute that the benefit of the scheme was extended by the government from time to time and lastly it was extended up to 30.09.2020 for the purpose of making payment by virtue of notification dated 27.06.2020. 27. In this context, it is relevant to state that on account of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, (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 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. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciliation 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. 28. So also, under identical circumstances, the Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court and Delhi 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:- 1. Apnaa Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, 2002 a Centax 83 (Mad.) 2. N. Sundaranjan vs. Union of India, 2023 13 Centax 337 (mad) 3. R. R. Housing India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Committee (SVLDRS), Coimbatore, 2024 14 Centax 15 (Mad.) 4. Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024 8 TMI 155-Bombay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the same. However, the receipt of this, if at all, becomes W.P. Nos. 19919 of 2020, 2942 of 2021 & 17428 of 2022 irrelevant in light of a decision of this Court in N. Sundararajan v. Union of India [W.A. Nos. 2047 to 2098 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. &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 decision of the Revenue not to challenge order dated 26.08.2021, despite the exclusions set out in the Circular, to my mind, indicates a conscious view to accept the ratio of the aforesaid order, which I will then, and consequently, 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 2021 stands 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. W.P.Nos.19919 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., allowed the Writ Petition, by permitting the petitioner to make a representation for acceptance of his application under SVLDR Scheme and on such representation being made, the Board was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders 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 de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 the benefit of a particular scheme, has to abide by the terms and conditions 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 vir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed impugned order, dated 27.08.2021 rejecting the representation contrary to the orders of this Court. 12. A plain reading of the above orders makes it explicit that this 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 lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....COVID pandemic from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Pursuant to the same, the respondent had also extended the time limit by considering 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Resolution Scheme, 2019 (in short, SVLDR Scheme) was introduced to settle 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 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, considering the pandemic situation, the Government 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 ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.12.2019. 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. 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 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 ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic 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 it is clear that no submission was ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,98,836/- 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." 28.4 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 Resoution) 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, R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ampal Vs. Union of India & Ors., (iii) Sitec Labs Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (iv) Reliance Infrastructure Vs. Union of India. 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., in support of this submission and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner CGST & Ors. Neutral Citation No.. 2025:AHC53855. 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 30 th 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held "It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice". 19. One of us (Manmohan, J) in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 4797, para 41 has held, "it is settled law that this Court has extremely broad jurisdiction under NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2022/DHC/004603 Article 226 of the Constitution and under the said Article it can pass whatever orders are necessary for doing equity and justice. The Supreme Court in N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744 has held that "unlike a inferior court, in respect of a High Court, which is also a Court of Record, it is assumed that every action is within its jurisdiction, unless expressly shown otherwise". 20. Consequently, the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances cannot be taken away or curtailed by any legislation. 21. In fact, the Supreme Court in Dal Chandra Rastogi v. CBDT (2019) 104 taxmann.com 341 (SC) wherein the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e discharge certificate in its favour. 30. The aforesaid conclusion is based upon the objective of the SVLDR scheme, which had been introduced by the Central Government, as a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax, the SVLDR scheme had also been issued to ensure disclosure of unpaid tax by an eligible person. This appears to have been associated as the levy of central excise and service tax had now been subsumed in a new GST Regime. Further, from the 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 these were 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 concerned authorities were required to keep in mind wh....