TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the respondents. 2. The respondents rejected the request primarily on the ground that the Scheme had already been closed and, therefore, the request could not be processed electronically. It was further stated that the case of the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Board's instructions for manually processing a declaration filed under the Scheme. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows: i) The petitioner was initially issued a show cause notice dated 09.12.2005, proposing recovery of CENVAT Credit availed in respect of outward transportation services for the period from November 2004 to September 2005. The demand was ultimately confirmed up to the level of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in A.No.E/PD/189/07 & E/323/07. As against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in CMA.No.1591 of 2009 before this Court. ii) During the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the Central Government introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 under the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The petitioner availed the benefit of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the prescribed time and had also taken steps to withdraw the CMA immediately. 6. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s.R.R. Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. the Designated Committee (SVLDRS), reported in 2023 (11) TMI 900 - Madras High Court, and contended that even the time line prescribed under the Scheme has been held to be directory and had been extended periodically. 7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s.Sir Gujan Builder vs. The Designated Committee and others reported in 2022 (5) TMI 432 Madras High Court and contended that the Department cannot refuse to issue discharge certificate on the ground that a Court order is required, when the declarant had satisfied all the requirements. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the procedural infractions, and the respondent cannot contend that the Scheme had been closed, particularly, in view of the extension of the period of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, by order dated 23.03.2020 reported in 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC. 9. The learned counsel submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to in sub-section (1). Thereafter, Form SVLDRS-4 will be issued, discharging the declarant from any liability as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 127 of the Act, within thirty days of the said payment and submission of the said proof, whichever is later. 14. The object of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 is to put a quietus to the disputes pending for a long time. The provisions are framed in such a way that they comprise of substantial and procedural compliances. The substantial conditions are payment and withdrawal. However, intimation to the authority about the withdrawal of the case, is procedural in nature. 15. The main contention of the respondents is that the request for issuance of discharge certificate has to be made only electronically and since the Scheme has been closed, it is impossible for the respondents to process the request for the discharge certificate. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made the payment in time and had also placed a request for the earlier listing of the case before this Court as early as on 16.07.2020. 17. Section 127(8) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 reads as under: "(8) On payment of the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner had promptly placed a request before this Court for withdrawing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the matter could be listed only on 16.09.2021, and the petitioner cannot be found fault with or penalised for the same. 22. The legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit is squarely applicable in the circumstances of the present case. The maxim embodies the settled principle that an act of the Court shall prejudice no person. In this regard, useful reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari and others vs. Prem Behari Khare reported in MANU/SC/0318/1989, wherein the said principle was recognized and applied. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows: "26. ..... As the maxim goes, actus curiae neminem gravabit. Nobody should suffer for an act of the court....." 23. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of A R. Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak and another, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602, held as follows: "81. .....It has been said long time ago that "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit"-an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sen....