9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 340 - HC - Service TaxRejection of application for rectification of an alleged clerical error in SVLDRS 1 - Period of limitation - due to a clerical error the petitioner had left the pre- deposit column blank in the declaration and had not filled the amount of pre-deposit in the Declaration Form. - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. - HELD THAT - no rectification application was filed by the petitioner within the period of thirty days stipulated in the SVLDR Scheme. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not rectify the Declaration Form, yet this Court finds that as the said Form had been filed on 27th February, 2020, the petitioner had sufficient time before the onset of the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic to rectify its mistake. Allegedly, the same was done on 30th June, 2021 date of the closure of the Scheme i.e. much beyond the period of thirty days. The petitioner had also not deposited the balance amount till 30th June, 2021. Writ petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of rectification application under SVLDR Scheme due to clerical error in declaration form. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the rejection of the rectification application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme due to a clerical error in the SVLDR Scheme declaration form. The petitioner sought directions to accept the balance payment and issue a Discharge Certificate. The court noted the petitioner's failure to claim pre-deposits in SVLDRS-1, leading to the lapse of the SVLDRS application. The petitioner argued that the rejection without rectifying the declaration was unjust. However, the court held that the petitioner's mistake in leaving the pre-deposit column blank could not be blamed on the respondents. The court emphasized that the department's duty was to verify the correctness of the declaration, not complete an incomplete form. The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions contravened the purpose of SVLDRS, aiming to assist compliance with the new GST regime without backlog. The court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine mistakes but emphasized that technical errors should not override substantial rights. The court highlighted that no rectification application was filed within the stipulated thirty days, despite the petitioner citing the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason for delay. The court found that the rectification was attempted much later, beyond the permissible timeline. The petitioner also failed to deposit the balance amount by the deadline. The petitioner claimed that instructions to the bank for payment were not executed due to the bank's and RBI's negligence. However, the court ruled that without the bank's involvement in the proceedings, it couldn't conclude negligence. The court advised the petitioner to pursue actions against the bank or RBI separately if deemed necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and pending applications, deeming them lacking in merit. The court directed the order's immediate upload on the website and forwarding a copy to the counsel via email.
|
