9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 571 - HC - Service TaxSVLDR Scheme - Litigation category - Arrears category - remission of duty - recovery of the CENVAT credit - Section 121 of the Finance Act - HELD THAT - It is stated that on 31st October, 2020, the scheme Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2019 has come to an end. On or about 27th January, 2020, the Form No. SVLDRS-3 was given and the Petitioner was directed to pay estimate amount of Rs.7,09,444/-. The Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing before the Authority, accepted the category as Arrears. The Respondents accepted the same and issued the estimated amount payable by the Petitioner under the Scheme. It is trite that concession given by an Advocate against the statute would not bind the litigant. However, it needs to be considered that though the estimated amount payable by the Petitioner under the Arrears category, was informed to the Petitioner on or about 27th January, 2020. The Petitioner did not take any steps against the same. There are no bona fide on the part of the Petitioner in offering to make payment nor the Petitioner approached this Court within a reasonable time - The Apex Court in case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER , has confirmed the order of High Court, refusing to grant relief to the Petitioner therein for extension of period to make deposit under the scheme. Considering the delay and latches in approaching this Court, so also lack of bonafides on the part of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Classification of the case under Litigation or Arrears category under the SVLDR Scheme. 2. Estoppel against statute regarding the classification of the case. 3. Consideration of the case under the Arrears category by the Respondents. 4. Timeliness of the Petitioner's actions and approach to the Court. 5. Bonafides of the Petitioner in making payments and approaching the Court. Issue 1: Classification of the case under Litigation or Arrears category under the SVLDR Scheme: The Petitioner filed a declaration under the Litigation category but was considered under the Arrears category by the Designated Committee. The Petitioner argued that their case falls under the Litigation category as per Section 121 of the Finance Act. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner mistakenly filed under Litigation and that the case should be considered under Arrears. The Court noted the submissions but emphasized that the concession given by the Counsel against the statute would not bind the litigant. The estimated amount payable under the Arrears category was communicated to the Petitioner, who did not take immediate action despite the scheme's extension till October 2020. Issue 2: Estoppel against statute regarding the classification of the case: The Petitioner's Counsel's statement that the case falls under the Arrears category was considered by the Respondents, but the Court highlighted that there cannot be an estoppel against statute. The Respondents' adherence to the proper procedure was noted, but the Court emphasized that the statutory classification should prevail over any Counsel's statement, especially when the Petitioner did not act promptly upon receiving the estimated amount payable under the Arrears category. Issue 3: Consideration of the case under the Arrears category by the Respondents: The Respondents argued that the scheme had ended, and the Petitioner's delay in making payments and approaching the Court was highlighted. The Respondents stated that the Petitioner initially filed under Litigation, then requested consideration under Arrears, and later failed to deposit the required amount to show bonafides. The Respondents contended that the case could not be considered after the scheme's conclusion, especially with the Petitioner's delayed actions. Issue 4: Timeliness of the Petitioner's actions and approach to the Court: The Court observed that the Petitioner did not approach the Court promptly despite being informed of the estimated amount payable under the Arrears category. The Petitioner's delay in taking necessary steps and filing the present Petition after a considerable lapse of time was considered. The Court noted that the Petitioner's failure to act within a reasonable time, especially before the scheme's deadline, impacted the Court's decision not to entertain the Writ Petition. Issue 5: Bonafides of the Petitioner in making payments and approaching the Court: The Court found a lack of bona fide on the part of the Petitioner in offering to make payments and approaching the Court within a reasonable timeframe. Citing a previous case, the Court emphasized the importance of timely actions and genuine intentions in seeking relief under such schemes. The Court's decision not to grant relief was influenced by the Petitioner's delay, lack of bonafides, and failure to act promptly in accordance with the scheme's requirements. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition due to the Petitioner's delay, lack of bonafides, and failure to approach the Court in a timely manner, especially considering the scheme's deadline and the statutory classification under the SVLDR Scheme.
|
