2022 (1) TMI 616 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Seeking to call for the records and directing the respondents to quash the impugned order - seeking issuance of discharge certificate in form SVLDRS-4 in respect of the arrears payable by the petitioner within a specified time frame - HELD THAT - In the case in hand, if the attempt made by the petitioner to make the payment on 30.06.2020, being the last date of making the payment has become successful, certainly, the petitioner would have been in a position to get the declaration under the scheme, but in that attempt, the petitioner has failed, even though genuinely that attempt was made by the petitioner. In order to show the bonafide, the next day also, such attempt had been made to make the payment and in fact, the payment has been debited from the account, only after 24 hours, that is, on 02.07.2021, it has been re-credited in the account of the petitioner. All the transactions, which are reflected in the statement of account of the petitioner show that,. the petitioner did make attempt to make the payment as per the scheme, and because of the technical glitches, if the said payment made by the petitioner has not been accepted by the account/website or whatever the E-Governance platform or web portal of the revenue, the blame cannot be put against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court feel that, the request of the petitioner can be reconsidered and hence, the present impugned order, reiterating the reasons stated in this regard once again, despite the direction given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, cannot be justifiable. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for availing benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Rejection of petitioner's plea due to non-payment within the stipulated deadline.
3. Consideration of petitioner's genuine attempts to make payment under the scheme.
4. Interpretation of technical glitches affecting payment transactions.
5. Judicial review of the impugned order and remittance for reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a business concern, sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order imposing GST tax and penalty. The petitioner attempted to settle arrears under the Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019, by paying a reduced sum. The petitioner's initial payment was re-credited due to technical issues, prompting subsequent unsuccessful attempts to pay.

2. The petitioner's plea was rejected by the committee for not meeting the payment deadline of 30.06.2020. The petitioner contended that genuine efforts were made to comply with the scheme's requirements, emphasizing the initial payment attempt and subsequent manual efforts. The respondents argued that timely payment was crucial, and the petitioner failed to meet the deadline despite having sufficient time.

3. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's consistent attempts to fulfill payment obligations, despite facing technical challenges. Emphasizing the scheme's purpose to provide relief to taxpayers, the Court noted the petitioner's genuine intentions and efforts. The Court recognized the importance of adhering to scheme procedures while considering the petitioner's circumstances.

4. Regarding technical glitches affecting payment transactions, the Court highlighted the petitioner's efforts to make timely payments, which were hindered by system issues. The Court emphasized the need to consider the petitioner's actions in good faith and the challenges faced in completing the payment within the stipulated timeframe.

5. Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Court set it aside and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the committee. The Court directed the committee to reevaluate the petitioner's case in light of the factual matrix presented, emphasizing the scheme's objectives and the petitioner's genuine attempts to comply. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the petitioner's eligibility under the scheme, emphasizing the scheme's purpose and the petitioner's efforts to fulfill payment obligations.