TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice tax viz; Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ('SVLDRS'), as per the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner submitted a declaration as contemplated under section 125 of the Finance Act and based on the same, the respondent offered the petitioner to settle the liability by paying Rs. 1,05,806/- as per section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019. The said payment ought to have been made by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a settlement accepting the declaration of the petitioner. The due date for the payment was extended by the Government up to 30.06.2020 by amending Rule 7 of SVLDRS. Later, the said period was extended up to 30.09.2020. However, the petitioner could remit the said amount on 16.11.2020 and the same was accepted by the Department. The proof of the remittance is Ext.P4. 3. Despite the above, on 10.06.2022, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice, demanding an amount of Rs. 8,30,851/- by the 5th respondent herein. As it was understood that the said amount pertains to the liability already settled by the petitioner by availing Amnesty scheme, the petitioner submitted an objection before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the attention of this Court a judgment rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in Jewel Homes Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner, Central Excise [WP(C) No. 31543/2024], wherein, this Court, taking into account the extension of the period of limitation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings in connection with the Covid -19 pandemic, held that, the petitioner therein is eligible to get the benefit of 2019 Amnesty scheme referred to above, even though the payment was affected after the cut of date prescribed in the scheme. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the decisions rendered by the High Court of Madras in WP(C) No.24366/2021, WP(C) No. 24136/2022 and WP(C) No. 11601/2021 wherein, similar view as stated in Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd (supra) was taken and the benefit was extended to the petitioners therein, as it was noticed that the payments were affected within the extended period of limitation as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even though said period was after cut off date prescribed under the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court to the Amnesty Scheme, in the light of the nature of the said scheme as contended by the respondent in this case, is not specifically considered by this Court in the said judgment, it may not be relied upon. Besides, the learned Central Government Counsel also brought to the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Yashi constructions v. Union of India and Ors. [SLP(C) No. 2070/2022 and M/S KEN Computek Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Committee [SLP (C) No. 2116/2023], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgments passed by the High Court of Allahabad and High Court of Karnataka respectively, which rejected the time extension sought by the respective parties therein, in respect of the payment of the amount as per the scheme referred to above. The learned Central Government Counsel also relied on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Anupam Industries Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others [Civil Application No.5062/2021 and Sneha Resort Pvt. Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [R/Special Civil Application No.2438 of 2022] where the said High Court rejected the claim seeking e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of the amount payable by the declarant within thirty days of the date of receipt of the declaration. (3) After the issue of the estimate under sub-section (2), the designated committee shall give an opportunity of being heard to the declarant, if he so desires, before issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: Provided that on sufficient cause being shown by the declarant, only one adjournment may be granted by the designated committee. (4) After hearing the declarant, a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by the declarant, shall be issued within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the declaration. (5) The declarant shall pay electronically through internet banking, the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of such statement. (6) Where the declarant has filed an appeal or reference or a reply to the show cause notice against any order or notice giving rise to the tax dues, before the appellate forum, other than the Supreme Court or the High Court, then, notwithstanding anyth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an estimate of the amount payable by the declarant along with a notice of opportunity for personal hearing. (4) If the declarant wants to indicate agreement or disagreement with the estimate referred to in sub-rule (3) or wants to make written submissions or waive personal hearing or seek an adjournment, he shall file electronically Form SVLDRS-2A indicating the same. Provided that if no such agreement or disagreement is indicated in the date of personal hearing and the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing, the committee shall decide the matter based on available records. (5) On receipt of a request for an adjournment under sub-rule(4), the designated committee may grant the same electronically in Form SVLDRS-2B. Provided if the declarant does not appear before the designated committee for personal hearing after adjournment, the committee shall decide the matter based on available records. (6) Within thirty days of the date of issue of Form SVLDRS-3, the designated committee may modify its order only to correct an arithmetical error or clerical error, which is apparent on the face of record, on s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and administrative acts are completely different in their powers and consequences, even though the difference between the same is very thin. In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani [AIR 1950 SC 222] in paragraph 67, the following observations were made: "67. In Banwarilal case [Banwarilal Roy, In re, (1944) 48 CWN 766] (at pp. 799-801) I had the occasion to analyse the essential characteristics of a quasi-judicial act as opposed to an administrative act. I stand by what I said on this point on that occasion. As I pointed out there, the two kinds of acts have many common features. Thus a person entrusted to do an administrative act has often to determine questions of fact to enable him to exercise his power. He has to consider facts and circumstances and to weigh pros and cons in his mind before he makes up his mind to exercise his power just as a person exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function has to do. Both have to act in good faith. A good and valid administrative or executive act binds the subject and affects his rights or imposes liability on him just as effectively as a quasi-judicial act does. The exercise of an administrative or executive act may wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... category of quasi-judicial act if the authority is nevertheless required by the statute to act judicially." 16. In Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd, Meerut v. Lakshmi Chand and Others [AIR 1963 SC 677], after referring to Province of Bombay's case (supra), it was observed as follows: "11...................In the performance of an executive act, the authority has certainly to apply his mind to the materials before him; but the opinion he forms is a purely subjective matter which depends entirely upon his state of mind. It is of course necessary that he must act in good faith, and if it is established that he was not influenced by any extraneous consideration, there is nothing further to be said about it. In a judicial proceeding, on the other hand, the process or method of application is different. "The judicial process involves the application of a body of rules or principles by the technique of a particular psychological method", vide Robson's Justice and Administrative Law p. 33. It involves a proposal and an opposition, and arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice, vide, R. v. London Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubject may be briefly stated thus : The provisions of a statute may enjoin on an administrative authority to act administratively or judicially. If the statute expressly imposes a duty on the administrative body to act judicially, it is a clear case of a judicial act. But the duty to act judicially may not be expressly conferred but may be inferred from the provisions of the statute. It may be gathered from the cumulative effect of the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion to be adopted, the phraseology used, the nature of the power conferred of the duty imposed on the authority and other indicia afforded by the statute. In short, a duty to act judicially may arise in widely different circumstances and it is not possible or advisable to lay down a hard and fast rule or an inflexible rule of guidance." 18. In Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 685] in paragraph 27, the following observations were made: "27. What distinguishes an administrative act from a quasi-judicial act is, in the case of quasi-judicial functions under the relevant law the statutory authority is req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the declaration made by the declarant under section 125, in such a manner as may be prescribed. Section 127 provides the manner in which, the adjudication is to be conducted. On going through Section 127 of the Finance Act and Rule 6 of SVLDRS Rules, it can be seen that, the designated committee has to verify the correctness of the declaration made by the declarant and Rule 6(1) further imposes a duty upon the designated committee while verifying the declaration made under Section 125, to make such verification based on the particulars furnished by the declarant as well as the records available with the Department. Section 127(2) contemplates that, where the amount to be payable by the declarant, as estimated by the designated committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then, the designated committee shall issue in electronic form, an estimate of the amount payable by the declarant, within thirty days of the date of receipt of the declaration. Sub section (3) of Section 127 provides for giving the declarant an opportunity for being heard, before finalizing the amount determined as per sub-section (2) referred to above. Thereafter, a final declaration in Form SVLDRS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g out such exercise, the designated authority is under an obligation to act judicially, as it is the requirement to take a decision by following the statutory provisions framed in this regard, where the liability to pay tax is contemplated. Under no circumstances, the proceedings or the acts that are being carried out by the designated authority could be treated as a mere administrative action, but on the other hand, it amounts to a quasi judicial act. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings are coming within scope of period of limitation that are referred to in the relevant orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings initiated in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic. 24. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned Central Government Counsel, the Yashi Constructions (supra) and M/S Ken Computek Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the special leave petitions filed against the judgments rendered by the High Court of Allahabad and High Court of Karnataka, where, the prayer seeking extension of time under the scheme was denied. However, on going through the aforesaid orders, it can be seen that the interference ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceeding. IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. "Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and educational and job-related requirements." Subsequently, a final order was passed in the said proceedings on 10.01.2022 in continuation of the earlier orders issued and the following directions were issued in paragraph 5 thereof. "I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contentions raised by the learned Central Government Counsel that the time extension granted by the Honourable Supreme Court in connection with Covid-19 pandemic is not applicable to the Scheme. Of course, the learned Central Government Counsel relies on the decisions rendered by the Gujarat High Court where, this question was considered. However, the said decision was rendered by relying upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashi constructions' case (supra). I have already found that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashi constructions' case (supra) was not by touching upon the extension of the period of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings.. 29. In this regard, it is also to be noted that, the High Court of Jharakand in W.P. (T) No. 1710/2022, even though held that the proceedings, under the scheme partakes the character of a quasi judicial proceeding but the relief was not granted to the petitioner therein, in view of the fact that the designated committee had completed the process in determining the amount and what remains was only the payment to be effected by the party concerned. It was foun....