9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated Committee - 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. The respondent authorities are directed to accept the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- as specified in SVLDRS-3 dated 16.03.2020 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. - Honourable Mr. Justice N.V.Anjaria And Honourable Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Anand Nainawati For the Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5 : Notice Served For the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 : Priyank P Lodha ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainavati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Priyank Lodha for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. 5.7 Respondent No.2 issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 16.03.2020 under section 127 of the Scheme read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules, 2019 (briefly Rules ) to the petitioner with an estimated amount of Rs. 38,64,255.50/- as payable. 5.8 According to section 127(5) of the Scheme read with Rule 7 of the Rules, the petitioner ought to have paid the amount determined as per Form SVLDRS-3 within thirty days i.e. on or before 16.04.2020, however, due to onset of Covid-19 Pandemic and lockdown starting from March 25,2020 the petitioner could not deposit the amount. 5.9 Respondent No.5-Central Board of Indirect Tax Customs , Department of Revenue [For short the Board ] announced the relief amid pandemic and nationwide lockdown and extended statutory dates for compliance and payments to 30.06.2020 for payment of dues under the Scheme as per the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance,2020 dated 31.03.2020. 5.10 The Board thereafter on 29.05.2020 amended the earlier circular No. 1071/4/2019- CX.8 dated 27.08.2019 wherein various time limits were prescribed and time limit for electronic paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid by the petitioner due to technical issues. The petitioner also contended that the Hon ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.03.2021 passed in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 has directed that while computing the period of limitation, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 to be excluded. The petitioner being aggrieved by not permitting it to make the payment as per Form SVLDRS-3 has preferred this petition. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Nainavati for the petitioner submitted that it is apparent from the bank statement of the petitioner that the petitioner tried to make the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- on 30.06.2020 but was returned in the bank account of the petitioner with Yes Bank on 03.07.2020. 6.1 It was submitted that the petitioner has already made pre-deposit of Rs. 9,65,656/- at the time of making the application in Form SVLDRS-1 and the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 38,64,256/- as per from SVLDRS-3 but the same could not be paid due to technical glitch from the receiving bank and the payment was returned and thereafter, the respondent authorities did not permit the petitioner for payment of the amount determined by the respondent No.2-Designated Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pting the declaration of the petitioner under the scheme or in not accepting the payment by the petitioner belatedly. I therefore direct the respondents to accept the payment from the petitioner, if the amount has not been paid or collected from the petitioner already, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and bring a closure in true spirit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Agroha Electronics Vs. Union of India, New Delhi, Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Rajasthan reported in 2021(3) TMI 1319 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court deems it fit that in the given facts and circumstances that the petitioner is a bona fide businessman and is prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the scheme along with interest for the period which he has defaulted in scheme and looking into the extreme pandemic conditions of COVID and the death of petitioner's father, this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2020 and there was no technical glitch as alleged by the petitioner. 7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Lodha submitted that the petitioner was aware to make payment as per the SVLDRS-3 since 16.03.2020 and there is no reason shown by the petitioner to wait till the last date of making payment on 30.06.2020. 7.2 It was further pointed out that as per the tax payers manual for SVLDRS, placed on the website of the Board explains the manner of generation of challan and payment methods with screenshots. Chapter VII of the manual explains the procedure for challan generation and Chapter VIII for the said manual explains the payment methods which clearly mentioned that net banking facility is not available for making payment of the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019. It was submitted that the petitioner was required to generate the challan and thereafter make the payment as per the procedure explained in the tax payer manual for the Scheme, but the petitioner did not follow such procedure. 7.3 It was submitted that the respondent-authorities have no power to extend the time limit for allowing the payment after 30.06.2020 and accordingly, the petitioner was not permitted to make the payment as det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Designated Committee. In view of the various decisions cited by the petitioner as reproduced here-in-above, 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. 10.The basic object of the Scheme is to reduce litigation by allowing the eligible assessee to make the payment of the outstanding dues after availing the relief under the Scheme. As per the provisions of the Scheme, respondent No.2 has issued a statement as provided under section 127 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act (No.02) 2019 determining the amount payable by the petitioner under the Scheme. Therefore, 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, we are of the opinion that this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
