9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 387 - HC - Central ExciseSeeking direction to open the portal or accept the amount, by any other means, and settle the dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Non-deposit of Central Excise Duty - suppression on the value of the figures of manufacture and clearance in the Central Excise Returns filed or not - HELD THAT - As per the documents annexed with the petition, the petitioner-Company was to deposit a sum of ₹ 10,90,646/-, as per the provisions of Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019, within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance of such statement. Annexure P-5 is the statement under Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019, read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019. Admittedly, the petitioner-Company could not deposit the amount within a period of thirty days, on account of the alleged technical glitch. This statement was issued on 28th January, 2020. Meaning thereby, the amount, as mentioned in this document, was to be deposited within a period of thirty days, i.e., on or before 27th February, 2020. Whether the time limit fixed under the Scheme can be extended by this Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070 of 2022, titled as M/s Yashi Constructions versus Union of India Ors. 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER , has replied this question in negative holding that the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the petitioner could not point out any legal impediment or bar to make the payment within the stipulated time. So far as the alleged technical glitch, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, when, the other similarly situated declarants have made the payment online, then, accepting the said plea is not justifiable - Moreover, as per the case set up by the petitioner, the SVLDRS-3 was issued on 28th January, 2020. As per Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner- Company was required to pay the amount payable, as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee, electronically, through internet banking, within a period of thirty days, from the date of issuance of such statement. Admittedly, this amount has not been deposited within the stipulated time and the first communication, which was made by the petitioner with the authorities, was made on 28th February, 2020, i.e. after the expiry of thirty days - Even otherwise, the present writ petition is also bad for delay and laches, as the intimation regarding the alleged technical glitch was made by the petitioner-Company, after the expiry of the statutory period, i.e. 28th February, 2020, and the present writ petition has been filed before this Court only on 21st July, 2022. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
The case involves the interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, specifically regarding the petitioner's failure to deposit the required amount within the stipulated time period due to alleged technical glitches and subsequent legal implications. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme The petitioner, a manufacturing company, applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, to settle its Central Excise Duty liability. The Scheme allowed settlement by paying 50% of the tax amount. The petitioner faced technical issues while trying to deposit the required amount within the specified time frame. Issue 2: Alleged Technical Glitches and Responses The petitioner encountered technical errors on the portal when attempting to generate the challan for depositing the amount. Despite efforts to contact the support team and authorities, the issue persisted. The petitioner highlighted challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but failed to deposit the amount within the extended deadline. Issue 3: Legal Implications and Supreme Court Precedents The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding tax dues within the prescribed time, attributing blame to technical issues. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict adherence to Scheme terms. The Court dismissed the petition, citing lack of legal impediment for payment and delay in seeking relief, ultimately denying any relief to the petitioner. Key Points: - Petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Scheme due to technical glitches. - Court emphasized adherence to Scheme terms and dismissed the petition based on lack of legal impediment for payment and delay in seeking relief. - Supreme Court precedents highlighted the importance of strict compliance with Scheme conditions, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's plea for relief. This summary encapsulates the key issues, details, and outcomes of the judgment regarding the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, as interpreted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
|
