9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 418 - HC - Service TaxSabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - failure to make payment by 30th June 2020 - Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws ordinance, 2020 - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the error is at the end of the petitioner s agent i.e. petitioner s bank. No fault can be attributed to the respondent no. 3/Designated Committee. Accordingly, the decision taken by the Designated Committee is in accordance with Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws ordinance, 2020 - If the petitioner has any grievances with its bank, it shall be at liberty to proceed against the same in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the said controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
Issues:
1. Quashing of letter treating application as lapsed under SVLDRS 2. Direction for acceptance of declaration/application under SVLDRS Analysis: 1. The petition was filed seeking to quash a letter treating the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) as lapsed for failing to make payment by the specified date. The petitioner had made the required payment, which was reversed due to a banking error. The petitioner then voluntarily submitted a demand draft to discharge the liability, but the application was still treated as lapsed. The court found that the error was on the petitioner's bank's end, and no fault could be attributed to the Designated Committee. The decision taken by the Committee was held to be in accordance with the relevant laws. 2. The petitioner also sought a direction for the acceptance of the declaration/application filed under SVLDRS and the issuance of a Discharge Certificate. The court, after considering the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel and examining the evidence, clarified that if the petitioner had any grievances with the bank, they were at liberty to proceed against the bank in accordance with the law. The court did not express any opinion on the bank controversy and left the rights and contentions of all parties open. The order was to be uploaded on the website immediately, and a copy was to be forwarded to the petitioner's counsel via email.
|
