9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1055 - HC - Service TaxRejection of application of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - requirement to make payment electronically through Internet banking - petitioner made an attempt to pay through the bank by utilising the banks RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility which is impermissible under the aforesaid scheme - HELD THAT - The petitioner had attempted to pay the amount through the 5th respondent bank s RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility. The amount which was paid through RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility of the 5th respondent bank was however re-credited into the petitioner s bank account. The facts on record indicates that the amount of Rs.41,331.20/- was indeed paid by the petitioner which however was re-credited back due to technical glitches. Therefore, the legitimate the benefit of the above scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner. Mistake is on account of the system evolved which failed to accept the payment. The impugned orders passed and the communication stands quashed by permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts in respect of which attempt was made by the petitioner to pay through the 5th respondent RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility on 29.03.2020 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order - If the petitioner pays the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent shall bring a closure to the case of the petitioner by accepting the payment subject to the petitioner fulfilling other conditions of the scheme. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the communication dated 23.09.2020 by the third respondent. 2. Legitimacy of the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE dated 19.10.2020 by the fourth respondent. 3. Petitioner's eligibility for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 benefits. 4. Impact of technical issues on the petitioner's tax payment under the scheme. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Communication Dated 23.09.2020 by the Third Respondent: The petitioner, a Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, challenged the communication dated 23.09.2020, which stated that the due date for payment of tax dues under the SVLDRS scheme was 30.06.2020, and no extension had been provided by the CBIC. The communication emphasized that if the declarant did not pay within the stipulated time, the declaration would be treated as lapsed. 2. Legitimacy of the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE Dated 19.10.2020 by the Fourth Respondent: The petitioner also contested the Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original No.2/2019 C.Ex (AC 1 Dvn) dated 01.05.2019. The petitioner argued that they had multiple cases pending, one of which was under appeal, and sought to settle the disputes under the SVLDRS scheme. 3. Petitioner's Eligibility for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 Benefits: The petitioner intended to settle disputes under the SVLDRS scheme and had approached the fifth respondent bank to make payments via RTGS. Although the payment was initially successful, it was re-credited to the petitioner's account without their knowledge. The petitioner argued that they paid the amount before the deadline and should not be penalized due to the re-credit issue. The respondents countered that payments under the scheme must be made electronically through Internet banking, and the petitioner's attempt to pay via RTGS was impermissible. 4. Impact of Technical Issues on the Petitioner's Tax Payment Under the Scheme: The court considered whether the petitioner could be denied the scheme's benefits due to the technical issue of re-crediting the payment. The facts showed that the petitioner had indeed attempted to pay the amount through RTGS, but it was re-credited due to a system error. The court found that the petitioner should not be penalized for this technical glitch and allowed them to make the payment within 30 days from the receipt of the order. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned orders and communications, permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts within 30 days. If the petitioner makes the payment within this period, the respondents are to accept it and close the case, subject to the petitioner fulfilling other scheme conditions. If the petitioner fails to pay within the stipulated time, the fourth respondent is to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the law after a hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
