TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 days expired on 21.02.2020 and at that time there was no Covid-19 pandemic as well as no lockdown. Even during the extended period also the petitioner did not make any effort to make the payment. The petitioner deposited the amount on 16.11.2021 which is after almost one year. There are no ground to interfere - petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2022 - HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI) PETITIONER: SHRI ATISHAY DHAKER, LEARNED COUNSEL RESPONDENTS: SHRI PRASANNA PRASAD, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL ORDER The petitioner is a registered government civil contractor. Respondent no.4 vide order dated 16.12.2019 has imposed tax liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019. The petitioner tried to make payment of ₹ 8,18,052/- under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 but he was not permitted to do so hence, the present petition before this court. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the amount of ₹ 8,18,052/- through cheque no.197672 but a discharge certificate has not been issued and respondent no.5 and insisting on payment of outstanding demand. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that as per section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019 the period of limitation of 30 days has been extended up to 30.06.2020 in order to give relief to the citizens amid the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court has also considered the issue of extension of limitation suo mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case, the petitioner neither deposited the amount within 30 days from the date of issuance of Form no.3 on 21.01.2020 nor make any efforts to make payment upto 30.06.2020. The 30 days expired on 21.02.2020 and at that time there was no Covid-19 pandemic as well as no lockdown. Even during the extended period also the petitioner did not make any effort to make the payment. The petitioner deposited the amount on 16.11.2021 which is after almost one year. The relevant paras of writ petition no.17252/2021 ( M/S MAYA FAN AIR ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Versus Union of India) are as under:- 09. As per Rule 9 of the Sab Ka Vishwa (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 , designated committee on being satisfied of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmit any reply to the notice nor entered into any correspondence which, if they had deposited the amount as contended by them, they certainly would have. On the other hand, they have preferred this petition before this Court on 03.09.2021 which is also after more than two months from the date of service of notice dated 22.06.2021. 11. It is hence apparent that they are no bona fides on part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Their conduct manifestly shows that they were always aware of the return of the amount which was purportedly remitted by them. On the contrary, they have kept the amount in a fixed deposit and have been earning interest from it. They have never taken any steps subsequent to 30.06.2020 i.e. on the date wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|