9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 829 - HC - Service TaxBenefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - failure to transfer the amount of discounted arrears of tax determined by the Designated Committee latest by 30.06.2020 - HELD THAT - True it is that the petitioner had made an attempt but it does not appear from the record that the account of the Revenue was credited with the said discounted amount of arrears of tax determined by the Designated Committee latest by 30.06.2020. The record also gives an impression that the said glitch was at the stage of the account of the petitioner and so not at the stage of the account of the Revenue. This Court has already taken a view against the petitioner in Ms. Metrics Promotions Events vs. Commissioner CGST ors. 2022 (6) TMI 980 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER , that the scheme cannot be tinkered with unless the vires of the scheme is challenged. Thus, the procedure prescribed under the scheme has to be strictly followed. The last date fixed for payment has to be strictly adhered to - Any extension to the said date which the scheme does not subscribe, would lead to opening a Pandora's box as there will be a flood of litigation bringing assessees to the Court by taking the plea of technical glitch. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's failure to take advantage of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 by not transferring the discounted arrears of tax by the specified deadline. 2. Technical glitch leading to the failure of the petitioner to deposit the discounted amount on time. 3. Interpretation of the Scheme's provisions and adherence to procedural requirements. 4. Comparison of decisions from different High Courts regarding similar cases. 5. Consideration of legal instructions for manual processing of declarations. 6. Determination of whether the petitioner should be granted relief under the Scheme despite the technical issue. Issue 1: Petitioner's Failure to Utilize the SVLDRS Scheme: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking relief after failing to transfer the discounted arrears of tax by the deadline specified under the SVLDRS Scheme. The petitioner requested fresh challans under the Amnesty Scheme and the ability to treat the deposited amount in line with the Scheme's provisions. Issue 2: Technical Glitch and Attempted Deposit: The petitioner argued a technical glitch prevented the successful transfer of the discounted amount on the last date for payment. Despite attempts to deposit the amount, it was debited from the petitioner's account but credited back due to the glitch. The petitioner relied on a Gujarat High Court decision to support the claim of a bona fide attempt to make the payment. Issue 3: Scheme Interpretation and Procedural Compliance: The Court considered the Scheme's objective to reduce litigation by allowing eligible assessees to pay outstanding dues. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure strictly. While acknowledging the petitioner's attempts, the Court highlighted the necessity to follow the scheme's provisions without extensions beyond the stipulated deadline. Issue 4: Comparison of High Court Decisions: The Court compared decisions from different High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court, to determine the applicability of the petitioner's case. It referenced a Gujarat High Court decision favoring the petitioner's position but ultimately relied on the Apex Court's decision to dismiss the petition. Issue 5: Legal Instructions for Manual Processing: The Court referenced instructions clarifying the manual processing of declarations, emphasizing the need for compliance with specified conditions. However, the Court's decision was not influenced by these instructions in the case at hand. Issue 6: Granting Relief Despite Technical Glitch: Despite the petitioner's argument for relief due to the technical glitch, the Court dismissed the petition, citing the need to strictly adhere to the Scheme's provisions and deadline. The Court did not find merit in the petitioner's plea, dismissing the petition with the option for the petitioner to challenge the scheme's constitutional validity in the future. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Court's considerations and decisions regarding the petitioner's case under the SVLDRS Scheme.
|
