2025 (1) TMI 941 - HC - Service Tax

Prayer for a direction to CGST and Central Excise Authorities to accept the declared amount manually as per the statements issued in Form SVLDRS-3 - entitlement for benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner was required to make the payment as determined in Form SVLDRS-3 and the petitioner tried to make the payment through RTGS on 29.06.2020 however the same was not accepted by the receiving bank and the payment was returned to the petitioner which is apparent from the bank statement produced on record. It also appears from the record that the petitioner could not generate the challan successfully for making the payment and after the advice of its Chartered Accountant tried making payment through NEFT/RTGS out of abundance caution and to demonstrate the bona fide of the petitioner to make the payment as determined under the Scheme by respondent No. 2 Designated Committee. In view of the bona fide attempt made by the petitioner to make the payment cannot be doubted and therefore the substantive benefit of the Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of procedural technicalities more particularly in time of Covid-19 Pandemic. In the given facts and circumstances the petitioner made bona fide attempt to make the payment as determined under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the Scheme along with interest for the period for which the petitioner was not permitted to make payment by respondent authorities considering extreme Pandemic condition of Covid-19 it is opined that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court in similar circumstances in case of M/S LG CHAUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (10) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT allowed the petition by directing the respondent authorities to accept the payment as specified in SVLDRS-3 along with interest and grant the benefit of SVLDRS to the petitioner therein. The respondent authorities are directed to accept the payment as specified in SVLDRS-3 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.06.2020 till the date of payment and grant the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner - Petition allowed.

2022 (10) TMI 631 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the petitioner should be allowed to make manual payments under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) due to technical difficulties faced during the payment process?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the SVLDRS despite failing to make the payment within the stipulated time due to alleged technical glitches?
Whether the procedural lapses in the payment process can be excused in light of the bona fide attempts made by the petitioner, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic circumstances?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Manual Payment under SVLDRS

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was introduced to settle disputes related to Central Excise and Service Tax. The scheme mandates online payment of dues as determined in Form SVLDRS-3.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court recognized the technical difficulties faced by the petitioner in generating the challan and making the payment online. It noted that the petitioner made bona fide attempts to comply with the scheme's requirements.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner attempted to make payment through RTGS, which was debited but re-credited due to technical issues. The court found the petitioner's efforts genuine and not merely a delay tactic.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of equity and fairness, considering the pandemic's impact and the petitioner's sincere efforts to comply with the scheme.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to follow the automated process and did not report issues to the CBIC Mitra Helpdesk. However, the court found that the petitioner's repeated attempts and communications with the department demonstrated a genuine intent to settle the dues.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to make manual payments, given the technical difficulties and the pandemic's impact.

Issue 2: Entitlement to SVLDRS Benefits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The SVLDRS aims to reduce litigation by allowing eligible assessees to settle outstanding dues with relief. The scheme's procedural requirements must be balanced with its objective to resolve disputes.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the scheme's purpose and the petitioner's bona fide attempts to comply. It referenced a similar case where relief was granted under comparable circumstances.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had filed declarations under the SVLDRS and was issued Form SVLDRS-3, indicating acceptance of the declared liability. The court found no fault in the petitioner's declarations.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the SVLDRS provisions, considering the petitioner's genuine efforts and the pandemic's extraordinary circumstances.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the automated payment process. The court, however, prioritized the scheme's intent over procedural technicalities.
Conclusions: The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the SVLDRS, provided the dues are paid with interest.

Issue 3: Procedural Lapses and Bona Fide Attempts

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the principles of natural justice and equitable relief, especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the petitioner's bona fide attempts to make the payment and the procedural hurdles faced due to technical glitches and pandemic-related disruptions.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's communication with the department and attempts to make payment were considered genuine efforts to comply with the scheme.
Application of law to facts: The court balanced procedural requirements with the need for equitable relief, given the pandemic's impact and the petitioner's sincere efforts.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' focus on procedural compliance was outweighed by the petitioner's bona fide attempts and the scheme's overarching purpose.
Conclusions: The court concluded that procedural lapses should not bar the petitioner from receiving the scheme's benefits, provided the dues are paid with interest.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"In view of the bona fide attempt made by the petitioner to make the payment cannot be doubted and therefore, the substantive benefit of the Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of procedural technicalities more particularly, in time of Covid-19 Pandemic."

Core principles established:

The SVLDRS's primary objective is to resolve disputes and reduce litigation, and this objective should not be thwarted by procedural technicalities, especially in extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic.
Bona fide attempts to comply with legal obligations should be recognized and facilitated, particularly when technical issues impede compliance.

Final determinations on each issue:

The petitioner is allowed to make manual payments under the SVLDRS due to technical difficulties encountered during the online payment process.
The petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the SVLDRS, provided the dues are paid with interest at 9% per annum from 30.06.2020 until the date of payment.
Procedural lapses in the payment process are excused in light of the petitioner's bona fide attempts and the Covid-19 pandemic's impact.

← Previous Next →