9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the Bank. Also on this aspect, since the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of M/S LG CHAUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2022 (10) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] on the ground that the facts are identical, it has to be noted that in the case of L.G. Chaudhary, the interest amount as stipulated at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum was directed to be paid Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is opined that the interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum would be appropriate. The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 7,69,317/- under the Scheme of 2019 along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from 30 June 2020 till the date of payment - petition allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount was refunded to the Petitioner s account. According to the Petitioner, thereafter the Petitioner tried multiple times to generate a new challan but was not successful. 6. On 15 July 2020, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 communicated to the Petitioner by an e-mail calling upon the Petitioner to submit response to pay tax dues under the Scheme of 2019. The Petitioner responded by an e-mail dated 16 July 2020 that the Petitioner is willing to pay tax dues and requested Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to give opportunity to make the payment. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner attempted on several occasions to make payment and considering that payment was made under the Scheme of 2019 under old challan, the Petitioner also requested Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vail the benefit of the Scheme of 2019 is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Form SVLDRS-3 was issued to the Petitioner. The fact that the period to deposit the amount was extended to 30 June 2020 is not in dispute. The Petitioner has placed on record the documents received from the Bank which shows that the Petitioner on 24 June 2020 had made payment of Rs. 7,69,317/- and the Petitioner has placed on record the Bank statement and RTGS slip acknowledgment of the Bank confirming the payment made out of which SMS was received from the Bank. In the reply affidavit, these facts have not been disputed. 11. In the case of M/s. L.G.Chaudhary (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat considered the identical situation where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances, we are of the opinion that indulgence as granted by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. L.G. Chaudhary (supra) also needs to be extended to the case of Petitioner. 14. On the aspect of delay in filing the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner attempted various occasions to pay the amount and it took some time to collect that documents from the Bank. Also on this aspect, since the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of M/s.L.G.Chaudhary (supra) on the ground that the facts are identical, it has to be noted that in the case of L.G. Chaudhary (supra), the interest amount as stipulated at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum was directed to be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
