2021 (6) TMI 680 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - only part payment of amount declared - HELD THAT - The petitioner cites the difficulties caused by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic to justify the delay in making the remittances. As far as W.P.Nos.14451 and 14497 of 2020, wherein Form 3 has been issued on 27.12.2019 and the 30 day period available for remittance is till January, 2020, the reliance upon the pandemic would not come to the aid of the petitioner. As far as W.P.No.14454 of 2020, wherein Form 3 has been issued on 27.02.2020 and time was available till the end of March, 2020, the lock down that was imposed on 25.03.2020 may come to the aid of the petitioner. W.P.Nos.14451 an 14497 of 2020 are dismissed - List W.P.No.14454 of 2020 on 21.06.2021 for further hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking mandamus for acceptance of payments under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019.
2. Delay in remitting amounts quantified under the Scheme due to COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Dismissal of W.P.Nos.14451 and 14497 of 2020, listing of W.P.No.14454 of 2020 for further hearing.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested a mandamus directing the Union of India to accept payments under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, the court noted that the Scheme mandates payments to be made within 30 days from the receipt of Form 3. The petitioner failed to remit the full amounts quantified within the stipulated time frame, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay. The court found that while the pandemic could be a valid reason for the delay in one case where the lockdown was imposed before the deadline, it did not justify the delay in the other cases where the deadlines had already passed.

2. In response to the petitioner's argument regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the remittance deadlines, the court differentiated between the cases where Form 3 was issued in December 2019 and the deadline was in January 2020, and the case where Form 3 was issued in February 2020 with a deadline in March 2020. The court held that the lockdown imposed in March 2020 could be considered a valid reason for delay only in the latter case, not in the former cases where the deadlines had already lapsed. Consequently, the court dismissed W.P.Nos.14451 and 14497 of 2020, emphasizing that the petitioner had not fulfilled the payment obligations within the specified time frame.

3. Finally, the court dismissed W.P.Nos.14451 and 14497 of 2020, without imposing any costs. Additionally, the court ordered the listing of W.P.No.14454 of 2020 for further hearing on a specified date, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present their case regarding the delay in remittance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision indicates a nuanced approach by the court in considering the impact of exceptional circumstances on compliance with legal obligations under the Scheme, while also upholding the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines for payment under such schemes.