2021 (1) TMI 23 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - permission to make payment physically or electronically under the SVLDRS scheme - although the writ applicant was able to generate the challan yet was not able to make the payment as the portal reflected an error on the ICEGATE - HELD THAT - The writ applicant should take up this matter with the Chairman CBIC at the earliest by filing an appropriate application or representation - As a writ Court it has its own limitations but if the writ applicant is ready and willing to deposit the requisite amount then the Chairman CBIC should look into the matter and try to resolve the dispute. Ultimately the revenue is going to be benefited with the amount that the writ applicant may deposit for the purpose of seeking the benefit under the Scheme if found eligible. This writ application is disposed off asking the writ applicant to immediately approach the Chairman CBIC with a request to accept the payment in any mode that Chairman may deem fit having regard to the scheme. Once such application or representation is filed the Chairman CBIC shall look into the same at the earliest and take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the writ applicant in writing - application disposed off.

Issues:
1. Relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Quashing of show cause notice and prohibition on respondent from taking action.
3. Seeking deletion of a settled amount from a show cause notice.
4. Stay on proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
5. Grant of ex parte ad-interim relief.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 for directions to allow payment under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner faced issues with electronic payment due to technical glitches and requested an extension, which was not granted. The court noted the extension granted by the government due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner was unable to make the payment within the extended deadline, leading to the current dispute.

2. The court considered the quashing of a show cause notice and prohibition on the respondent from taking further action. The petitioner argued that the notice should be set aside, and no action should be taken against them. The court directed the respondent to consider the technical issues faced by the petitioner in making the payment.

3. The petitioner also sought the deletion of a settled amount from a show cause notice. The respondent highlighted that ample opportunities were provided for payment, and the petitioner failed to avail them. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have raised technical issues for assistance and that the claim of a technical glitch seemed like an afterthought.

4. The court addressed the request for a stay on proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The respondent argued that the demand for service tax was proper and legal, and the petitioner should contest it separately before the appropriate forum. The court emphasized that the petitioner had sufficient opportunities to make payments but failed to do so within the specified time frame.

5. The court granted an ex parte ad-interim relief and disposed of the writ application. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Chairman, CBIC for payment resolution. The court highlighted that if the petitioner is willing to deposit the requisite amount, the Chairman should look into the matter to resolve the dispute. The court emphasized the importance of finding a viable solution beneficial to both parties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court regarding the petitioner's claims under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and related proceedings.

← Previous Next →