9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 13 - HC - Service TaxSVLDR Scheme - benefit of scheme denied due to his inability to make payment of Rs.2,74,860/- pursuant to Form SVLDRS-3 in view of the expiry of the challan (mandate form) in the face of the fact that although the payment that was made vide RTGS dated 22 June 2020 was initially accepted but later on reversed and refunded to the Petitioner s bank account due to an expired challan - HELD THAT - The SVLDR Scheme is a Scheme that had been brought in by the Government put an end to legacy disputes in indirect tax matters which would benefit the tax payer, assessees as well as the Revenue. The tax payers would have the benefit of ending the legacy disputes with the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities would in turn unlock the Revenues that were locked up in such disputes. The Apex Court in the case of M/S. SHEKHAR RESORTS LIMITED (UNIT HOTEL ORIENT TAJ) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2023 (1) TMI 256 - SUPREME COURT had while considering a challenge under the SVLDR Scheme held that the Appellant therein cannot be punished for not doing something which was important for it to do - The Apex Court holding as above allowed the appeal of the Appellant and setting aside the order of the High Court directed that the payment made by the Appellants therein be appropriated towards the settlement of dues under the SVLDR Scheme and the issue discharge certificate. Thus, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme merely on the basis of a technical issue of reversal of the amount paid by Petitioner prior to 30 June 2020 on the ground of expiry of challan for which clearly the Petitioner was not at fault. The Respondent-Authorities are directed to allow the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,74,860/- under the SVLDR Scheme pursuant to the subject SVLDRS-3 and thereafter, issue the necessary discharge certificate under the said scheme - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to regenerate challan/mandate form. 2. Denial of benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). 3. Technical error due to expiry of challan. 4. Legal precedents and applicability of judgments. Summary: 1. Failure to Regenerate Challan/Mandate Form: The petitioner was aggrieved by the failure of the Respondent-Authorities to regenerate a challan/mandate form for payments pursuant to Form SVLDRS-3 issued on 23 February 2020. The petitioner, engaged in providing professional services, had quantified the service tax payable and sought to benefit from the SVLDR Scheme by filing SVLDRS-1 on 30 December 2019, declaring Rs. 9,16,203/- as tax dues. Form SVLDRS-3 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,74,860/-. 2. Denial of Benefit Under SVLDR Scheme: Due to the nationwide lockdown, the petitioner could not visit the bank to make the payment, which led to the reversal of the RTGS payment due to an expired challan. Despite multiple attempts and communications with the Respondent Authorities, the petitioner was unable to regenerate the challan. The petitioner argued that the benefit of the scheme was being denied due to a technical error. 3. Technical Error Due to Expiry of Challan: The petitioner contended that the reversal of the payment was due to the expiry of the challan, a technical error for which the petitioner was not at fault. The petitioner cited legal precedents to support the claim that the benefit should not be denied due to such technical issues. 4. Legal Precedents and Applicability of Judgments: The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, where it was held that the appellant could not be punished for not doing something impossible due to legal impediments. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India extended the time to deposit the amount under the SVLDR Scheme due to non-issuance of a new challan. Judgment: The court considered the facts and legal precedents, noting that the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme due to a technical issue of reversal of the amount paid before 30 June 2020. The court allowed the petition and directed the Respondent-Authorities to permit the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,74,860/- under the SVLDR Scheme and issue the necessary discharge certificate. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
