2024 (5) TMI 419 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit of the amnesty under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 under Chapter V of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 denied - petitioner could not pay the amount in time - HELD THAT - In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had made an attempt to pay the amount estimated in Form SVLDRS-3 dated 25.02.2020 on 30.06.2020 first by making NEFT transfer and thereafter by RTGS. Though the amount was debited, it was re-credited. It is probably on account of technical glitches in the system - the substantial benefit of amnesty under the aforesaid scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing the estimated amount in Form SVLDRS-3 dated 25.02.2020 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with interest at 9% from 30.06.2020. Subject to the payment of the amount quantified in Form SVLDRS-3 dated 25.02.2020 together with interest payable up to the date of payment at 9%, the impugned order shall stand quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are related to the petitioner's attempt to settle a service tax liability under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019, and the denial of the benefit of the amnesty under the scheme due to failure to pay the amount in time.

Service Tax Liability Settlement:
The petitioner had opted to settle a service tax liability under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme Rules, 2019 but failed to pay the required amount within the specified time frame due to lockdown restrictions, leading to the denial of the amnesty benefit.

Adverse Order and Challenge:
An adverse order was passed confirming the demand for service tax against the petitioner for a specific period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner challenged this order citing a similar relief granted in a previous court decision.

Legal Arguments:
The petitioner attempted to make the payment through NEFT and RTGS, but technical issues led to the amount being re-credited. The Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner missed the payment deadline and should seek remedy through the Appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Court Decision:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's payment attempts and ruled that the benefit of amnesty cannot be denied due to technical glitches. The court directed the petitioner to pay the estimated amount within 30 days from the date of the order with interest. Upon payment, the impugned order was quashed, and the case was to be settled by issuing Form SVLDRS-4. Failure to pay within the stipulated time would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.