9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 343 - HC - Service TaxRecovery of service tax - failure to pay the discounted amount of service tax by the last date - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT This Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petition and deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition for the reasons infra - The decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Indore in the case of M/s. Balaji Services 2021 (10) TMI 435 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT does not assist the petitioner since in the said scheme the question of extending the last date for submission of rebated amount of service tax was not raised or decided. The question before the Court was as to whether the rejection of application Form SVLDRS-1 can be made without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee despite the scheme providing for such an opportunity. It is not disputed by the petitioner that all attempts made till 30.06.2020 to deposit the rebated amount of service tax had failed. The contention that the rebated amount was paid on the first/second July, 2020 is of no avail to the petitioner since it was after the last date statutorily mandated for deposit of rebated amount of service tax. More so, there is nothing on record to show that the last date was extended beyond 30.06.2020. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to recovery order under SVLDR Scheme of 2019 for failure to pay service tax by the last date. Analysis: The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the recovery order seeking payment of service tax under the SVLDR Scheme of 2019. The petitioner failed to pay the discounted amount of service tax by the last date of 30.06.2020, resulting in the recovery order dated 08.02.2022. The petitioner contended that due to technical issues and the pandemic, the payment was delayed but was eventually made on 01.07.2020. The petitioner argued that despite paying the rebated service tax, the recovery order was still issued. The petitioner relied on a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench to support the argument that the SVLDR Scheme should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. The Revenue, on the other hand, denied the petitioner's contentions and stated that despite multiple opportunities to pay the rebated amount by 30.06.2020, the petitioner failed to do so. The payment was made on 02.07.2020, after the last date, rendering the petitioner liable for the normal rate of service tax. The Revenue cited a decision by a Coordinate Bench to argue against extending the last date for payment, emphasizing that such an extension would go against the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The Court, after hearing both parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition. The Court noted that the previous decision cited by the petitioner did not address the issue of extending the last date for payment. It was established that all attempts to pay by 30.06.2020 had failed, and the payment made on 01.07.2020 was after the statutory deadline. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court and a previous decision of the Court, the petition was dismissed without costs, based on the principles established in those cases.
|
