TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order 7.10.2021 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ghatak-2, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for short) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under "Vera Samadhan Yojna" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amnesty Scheme' for short) under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was rejected on the ground that there was delay of two days in depositing last installment. 5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ-petition are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed an application under the Amnesty Scheme for the Assessment Year 2015-16. As per the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 12,50,258/- towards full and final settlement of outstanding dues. The petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,50,258/- on or before 31.8.2021. 5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that an amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Respondent's online portal itself readjusted the installment amount to Rs. 102293.84 from sixth installment. It is submitted that such readjustment was unilateral. It is submitted that on account of such automatic readjustment of the installments, an amount of Rs. 34,102/- was short paid as on 31.08.2021. Therefore, Petitioner made an attempt to make payment through "E-payment" option on the online portal of the Respondent. However, the "E- payment" option indicated that any payment made through this option will not be reconciled with "Amnesty Scheme". Therefore, Petitioner also approached the Respondent for resolution of issue and providing necessary assistance in payment of remaining amount of Rs. 34,102/- on or before 31.08.2021. However, Respondent could not provide any workable solution. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted that between 29.08.2021 to 31.08.2021, Petitioner also made attempts to make payment of an amount of Rs. 34,102/- through E-services (VAT) > E-Payment. However, due to some technical issue on the online portal, Petitioner was not able to make the payment. That on account of such circumstances, beyond the control of the Petitioner, it could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvations made by the Division Bench of this Court, as referred to herein above, it can be said that the object of the amnesty scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of old disputes and recoveries of old outstanding dues of the Government and reduction of administrative costs. Since such scheme is applicable to all pending cases, the officers acting under the relevant statutes are expected to respect the object of the scheme and to ensure that the assessees get the benefit under the scheme. 7.5 In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that merely because the Petitioner inadvertently paid Rs. 2000/- less towards principal outstanding amount of tax, it cannot be denied the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 6.4 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in IA Housing Solution (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 147 taxmann.com.198 (Delhi) while referring the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had held as under:- "17. Moreover, the principle of a judgment rendered in a normal circumstance cannot be applied to abnormal and extraordinary circumstances such as Covid wherein t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Yet the Supreme Court taking note of the genuine hardship faced by the assessee and short delay in payment, ruled in favour of the taxpayer. NO PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY ACCEPTING THE PRAYER OF THE Petitioner S. RATHER, SUCH ACTION SHALL HELP ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE VSV ACT. 22. This is also a fit case where no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents by accepting the prayer of the Petitioner s. Rather, the Respondents benefit and achieve the purpose of the Scheme, namely, to reduce pendency of cases, generate timely revenue for the government and provide certainty and savings of resources that would be spent on the long-drawn litigation process. 23. Consequently as the delay in payment in the present cases were unintentional and supported by justifiable reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, and this unintentional delay deserves to be condoned. This approach will only further the object and purpose of the VSV Act." 7. From the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India in SLP (Civil) 2070 of 20....