2021 (12) TMI 383 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner by filing suitable appeal under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 on pre-deposit of 7.5% of the service tax demanded. The only option is available to the petitioner to approach the Director of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for appropriate relaxation in the light of outbreak of Covid-19 and on account of lock down imposed by the Government - petitioner is therefore directed to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals), within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within such time, the appeal shall be held maintainable - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019.
2. Impact of Covid-19 lockdown on payment deadlines under the scheme.
3. Judicial precedents on condonation of delays in tax payment schemes.
4. Authority of officers to deviate from time-bound schemes.
5. Remedies available to the petitioner for relief.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge Order-in-Original No.54 of 2020 ADC, dated 31.12.2020, under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner requested the court to direct the first respondent to enable payment as ordered under SVLDRS-3 on 09.04.2020.

2. The petitioner opted for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme by the extended deadline of 15.01.2020, with a fixed liability of &8377; 12,68,886.80. Due to Covid-19 lockdown impacting business operations, the petitioner sought an extension for payment, which was not granted, leading to the impugned order on 31.12.2020.

3. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court case where delays were condoned in a similar scheme, emphasizing the adverse impact of Covid-19 on their ability to make payments. The Senior Standing Counsel for respondents argued that the time-bound nature of the scheme should have been complied with, regardless of external circumstances.

4. The court acknowledged the petitioner's situation but highlighted the scheme's strict timelines. It emphasized that officers must adhere to the scheme's guidelines unless appropriate deviations are authorized. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies through statutory appeal and seek relaxation from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

5. The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days and approach the appropriate authorities for relief under the scheme due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition with observations on available remedies and no costs awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed accordingly.