2021 (12) TMI 626 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking direction to Respondents 2 to accept the SVLDRS Form 3 as generated for the Petitioner on 31-12- 19 and accept their balance payment and clear their case accordingly - HELD THAT - Noticing the chronology of events and, the need of SVLDRS coupled with the fact that time and again the petitioner has been reminded of the availability of the scheme and the possibility of his taking recourse to the same and when he has chosen not to do so, attachment had been started, pursuant to the order passed in the order in original. This Court sees no reason for any indulgence in order in original dated 01.02.2019 passed by the respondent authority against the petitioner. There is no case of any breach of principles of natural justice, nor any violation on the part of the authority concerned. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to action of respondent authority, Non-availment of benefit under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, Petitioner's engagement in recruitment and supply services, Demand for proof of business-related documents, Ex parte adjudication of duty demand, Petitioner's explanation for missing Scheme deadline, Request for relief and quashing of order, Expiry of Scheme, Petitioner's reliance on Chartered Accountant and medical emergency, Reminder of Scheme availability, Attachment initiated due to non-compliance, Interference with order in original, Breach of natural justice, Dismissal of petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the respondent authority's action and the non-availment of benefits under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner, engaged in recruitment and supply services, faced an inquiry demanding proof of business-related documents. Due to ignorance of procedure, the petitioner missed the show cause notice, leading to ex parte adjudication confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty. The petitioner cited personal circumstances for missing the Scheme deadline, including travel and family illness. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including quashing the order and lifting bank attachment.

The Court noted the expiry of the Scheme and the petitioner's failure to utilize it despite reminders. The Senior Standing Counsel highlighted the petitioner's laxity as the reason for missing the Scheme deadline. The petitioner's advocate emphasized reliance on the Chartered Accountant and personal medical emergency for non-compliance with the show cause notice. Despite reminders and opportunities, the petitioner did not take advantage of the Scheme, leading to attachment following the order in original.

The Court found no grounds for interference in the order in original, noting no breach of natural justice or authority violation. The petitioner still has statutory remedies available without delving into the merits of the case. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, bringing the matter to a close.