TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue a discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4, thereby discharging the petitioner of the remaining statutory liabilities payable it vide the order-in-Original dated: 13.01.2020 bearing C.No.IV/16/235/2019 ADJ/AWD3 and order Sl.No.02.2020 (Annexure-'A') passed under the Service Tax Act; (iv) Quashing the impugned letter dated: 02.09.2021 bearing C.No.V/16235/2019 AWD-3 9437/21 and DIN-20210957YU0000023742 issued by the 3rd Respondent (Annexure-Q); and (v) Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit the facts circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. (v-a) Alternatively, permitting the Petitioner to file an appeal against the order-in-Original dated: 13.01.2020, bearing C.No.IV/16/235/2019 ADJ/AWD3 and order Sl. No. 02.2020 (Annexure- 'A'), before the Commissioner (Appeals), and directing the said authority to consider the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 indicated in SVLDRS-3 on or before the last date i.e., 30.06.2020, the respondents were fully justified in issuing the impugned Endorsement, thereby denying the benefit of SVLDRS in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned Endorsement does not warrant interference in the present petition. 7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f 15th March 2020 till further orders/ to be passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill 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. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19919 of 2020, 2942 of 2021 & 17428 of 2022 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 would be so accepted, if filed at that juncture. 4. Inter ali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19919 of 2020, 2942 of 2021 & 17428 of 2022 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.19919 of 2020, 2942 of 2021 & 17428 of 2022 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents vide letter CBIC 90224//3/2021-C/O US (CXVI)-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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 COV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bt 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 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 work....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 time, the 2nd 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis at Rs.14,98,836/- determined under Form SVLDRS-3 by way of regular challan and intimated the same to the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 SVLDRS 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate 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." 10.4 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 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, Respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Antares Vs. Union of India & Ors.1, (ii) Arjun Rampal Vs. Union of India & Ors.2, (iii) Sitec Labs Ltd. Vs. Union of India3, (iv) Reliance Infrastructure Vs. Union of India4. 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 1 2023-TIOL-160-HC-MUM-ST 2 2023-TIOL-672-HCMUM-ST 4 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 25 (Bom.) 4 of 8 Tauseef 917-WP.3015.2021.doc Supreme Court in M/s. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors. 5, in support of this submission and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner CGST & Ors. 6 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 decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n generated stated the expiry date as 1 st July 2020. Petitioner was, therefore, under a bonafide belief that he could make the payment on 1st July 2020 which admittedly he has paid on said date. 11. In our view, therefore, on the facts of the present case denying the benefit of SVLDR Scheme would not only be contrary to the 6 of 8 Tauseef 917WP.3015.2021.doc 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 ....