2022 (4) TMI 1211 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking direction to the respondents to decide pending representation keeping in view Circular dated 14.07.2020 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - petitioner has failed to deposit the determined amount, within time limit - Scheme came to an end - whether the time limit can be extended further or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner could not deposit the determined amount under the Scheme of ₹ 18,96,770/- till 30.06.2020. By letter dated 30.06.2020, respondent No.1 has only directed all the Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner CGST CX All Zones to contact all major declarant who were unable to pay up to 30.06.2020 due to any difficulty but the period of Scheme was not extended by fixing time limit upto 30.09.2020. Once the Scheme has come to an end, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner hence the direction to decide the representation would be a futile exercise. The Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Maya Fan Air Engineering Private Limited Through Director Amit Chourasia Others v/s Union of India, Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance Others 2022 (1) TMI 1070 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that once the Scheme has already come to an end, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner who could not deposit the determined amount of tax before the last dated i.e. 30.06.2020. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction to decide pending representation under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019
2. Quashment of demand notices issued by respondent No.3

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company, sought direction under Article 226 to decide pending representation for benefit under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019. A show-cause notice was issued for a demand of &8377; 54,11,617, with partial deposits made earlier. The petitioner applied for scheme benefits, but respondent No.2 passed a recovery order. Despite seeking adjustment and extensions due to financial constraints from COVID-19, demand notices were issued by respondent No.3, leading to the present petition.

2. Respondents argued that the Scheme ended on 30.06.2019, and no benefit could be granted post that. The petitioner's failure to deposit the determined amount was cited as the reason for denial. The letter dated 14.07.2020 was deemed as internal communication for data collection, not extending the Scheme. The petitioner's plea was for acceptance of the adjusted amount, but respondent No.3 issued subsequent demand notices, leading to the current legal challenge.

3. The Court noted the petitioner's failure to deposit the determined amount by 30.06.2020, despite internal communications for major declarants facing difficulties. Citing precedents, the Court held that once the Scheme ended, no further benefits could be extended. Rulings in similar cases emphasized the importance of timely deposits under the Scheme, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court found no grounds for interference, aligning with previous judgments on the matter.