9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 993 - HC - Service TaxSabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - availability of rebate in arrears of tax - HELD THAT - There is no challenge to the constitutionality of this Scheme. Reliance is placed by counsel for the Revenue on a decision of Apex court in the case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER where it was held that The High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. This Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by Apex Court - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petition under Article 226 for relief in SVLDRS Scheme Form-4 issuance. 2. Dispute over Service Tax dues demand and SVLDRS rebate application. 3. Technical glitch causing delay in payment and discharge certificate issuance. 4. Legal interpretation of enabling provision for delay condonation. 5. Adherence to statutory provisions of SVLDRS Scheme. 6. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Scheme. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered service tax assessee, filed a petition seeking relief under Article 226 for the issuance of SVLDRS Form-4 by the designated committee. The dispute arose from a show cause notice demanding Rs.40,86,475 as Service Tax dues for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, confirmed by an order imposing interest and penalty. Subsequently, the Government introduced the SVLDRS in 2019 for tax arrears resolution. The petitioner applied under the Scheme, and the Designated Committee determined the reduced tax dues as Rs.15,11,990. However, due to a technical glitch, the payment was credited after the deadline, leading to non-issuance of the discharge certificate, leaving the petitioner in arrears. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the enabling provision for condoning the delay in payment under the SVLDRS Scheme. The Revenue contended that without such a provision, the deadline for deposit could not be extended, citing legal precedents emphasizing strict adherence to statutory schemes. Notably, the court highlighted that there was no challenge to the constitutionality of the Scheme, reinforcing the need for strict application of its provisions. In alignment with previous judgments, including one by the Apex Court, the court concluded that deviating from the Scheme's requirements could lead to unintended benefits for assessees, undermining the Scheme's integrity. Ultimately, after considering arguments from both parties, the court found no reason to diverge from the legal principles established by higher courts and upheld by the local bench. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and upholding the integrity of the SVLDRS Scheme.
|
