2024 (10) TMI 1256 - HC - Central Excise

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the scheme - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the amount of Rs. 89,77,393.50 as per Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the respondent No. 2 after considering the Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner had not deposited the money to avail the benefit under the scheme is of no consequence inasmuch as the facts remains that the petitioner had not abided by the terms and conditions of the scheme which stipulate that the petitioner was supposed to make the payment within 30 days from the issuance of the Form SVLDRS-3. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Yashi Constructions 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER has held that ' 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. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the the prerogative of the Government.' Thus, the petitioner can not get the benefit of Form SVLDRS-3 and permitting the petitioner to pay the amount as per the Form SVLDRS-3 would amount to modify the scheme by extending the date of payment which is not permissible. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal 2023 (5) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is also of no help to the petitioner as in the facts of the said case the petitioner could not deposit the amount due to some technical glitch - the decision in the case of Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal would not be applicable in the facts of the case when the petitioner has failed to deposit any amount as per the Form SVLDRS-3. The present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme.
3. Legal implications of failing to deposit the required amount under the scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, requesting the court to direct the respondents to consider a specific amount as pre-deposit/under protest money in accordance with Circulars issued by the Ministry Of Finance. The petitioner was involved in proceedings under the Central Excise Act, where a substantial amount was disallowed, leading to a demand for payment along with penalties and interest. The petitioner appealed to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and made a pre-deposit as required by law.

2. The petitioner claimed to have reversed wrongly availed cenvat credit and participated in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Despite the scheme's provisions, the Designated Committee issued a demand for payment, which the petitioner contested, citing entitlement to credit. The petitioner's failure to pay the demanded amount within the specified time led to the filing of the present petition.

3. The petitioner argued that the amount in question was already reversed in a previous return and should be considered as part of the deposit under the scheme. The petitioner relied on a Bombay High Court decision to support the argument that the benefit of a benevolent scheme should not be denied based on technicalities. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner did not comply with the scheme's terms and conditions, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to such requirements.

4. The court, citing the Supreme Court's stance on scheme compliance, held that allowing the petitioner to pay the amount beyond the specified date would amount to modifying the scheme, a prerogative reserved for the government. The court distinguished a previous case where non-payment was due to technical issues, emphasizing that the petitioner's failure to deposit any amount as per the scheme's requirements was a crucial factor in the decision.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to scheme conditions and denying the petitioner the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to non-compliance. The judgment highlighted the significance of timely and complete adherence to the terms and conditions of such schemes, reiterating that modifications to scheme requirements are beyond the court's purview.