2023 (4) TMI 81 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation to accept the payment in terms of SABKA VISHWAS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 towards Full and Final Settlement of tax dues, within the time stipulated - seeking to revoke the proceedings of the Central Revenue Authorities - HELD THAT - It is no doubt true that the scheme in question has a shelf life and it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent to extend the time. However, it is also seen that the Court exercises its jurisdiction to give directions to the taxing authorities to consider receiving the payment belatedly to ensure that the assessee abides by the duty caused upon him to make the payment of taxes. Taking a cue from this earlier precedence and with the idea of bringing about the via media, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions - The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondents shall bear in mind the fact that the entire amount had been paid by the petitioner on 30.07.2020 through RTGS. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner seeking Mandamus to direct consideration of representation for payment under SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019 and revocation of proceedings by Central Revenue Authorities.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Representation for payment under SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019
The petitioner, engaged in business services, was found due service tax by the authority before the GST regime. Subsequently, under the SABKA VISHWAS Scheme, 2019, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum towards service dues and penalty. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the petitioner remitted the service tax dues, believing compliance. However, a notice from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs revealed non-crediting of the amount. The petitioner then sent a Demand Draft and representation to consider the belated payment under the scheme. The respondents did not act on the representation, leading to the freezing of the petitioner's account.

Issue 2: Court's Decision
The petitioner's counsel argued the petitioner's bona fide compliance by remitting the demanded amount and willingness to pay interest. The Standing Counsel for respondents contended that the scheme's time limit cannot be extended and questioned the petitioner's awareness of the non-transfer of funds. The Court acknowledged the scheme's limited duration but directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation within one month, emphasizing the petitioner's payment made through RTGS in 2020. No costs were awarded in the judgment.