9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng been granted where request on the part of the petitioner would also not tantamount to modifying the scheme as he was never at fault. Twice when he made an attempt, he failed on account of technical glitch. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court mutandis mutandis in the case of the present petitioner who was not under the fault when this amount could not get deposited with the bank and was recredited after having once gone to the bank, to deny him the benefit only because there were technical glitches about which it could not have done anything, would amount to leaving the petitioner remediless which is impermissible under the law and this also since has been succinctly addressed by the Apex Court., following the decision in the case of M/s Shekhar Resorts Limited [ 2023 (1) TMI 256 - SUPREME COURT ] this petition is being allowed. The payment as per the directions of the committee was needed to be made by 30.6.2020 which instead had been made on 8.7.2020. Not only the Court can be oblivious of the Covid 19 pandemic being at its peak during that period for generating the payment was something where there was no say of the petitioner. Therefore, not only the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81,050.60 for full and final settlement of tax dues under the Act. The Mandate form has also been generated through portal for the settlement of pending amount of Rs 81,050.60/-. 7. After six days of the issuance of the form SVLDRS- 03, the payment was made of Rs 81,051/- through the cash credit account maintained with respondent no.5. It is averred by the petitioner that on 17.3.2020 when he did not receive the discharge certificate in Form, SVLDRS, the petitioner tried to find the reason and it was realised that the amount which had been duly debited could be re-credited in the account of the petitioner. This was via cash credit account maintained by the respondent no. 5. This was the time of Covid 19 pandemic when all businesses were shut down. The CBIC also extended the due date for payment till 30.6.2020 vide its notification dated 14.5.2020. 8. It is the say of the petitioner that once again the payment of service tax amounting to Rs 81,051/- has been made and by then the due date had elapsed. Thus the payment made twice due to technical glitch got credited in the account and the same had been recredited in the account of the petitioner. However, the petitioner since h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter. The condition of the SVLDRS Rules 2019 since then was not met, the SVLDRS 4 was not issued and it was appropriate on the part of the respondent department to initiate the recovery proceedings to recover the demand which was not disputed otherwise by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of M/s Yashi Contructions Vs Union of India decided on 18.2.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2070 of 2022 and urged that once extended time period for making the payment was over on 30.6.2020, the department could not have permitted to accept the first of amount under the scheme. 10. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Avinash Poddar and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval assisted by learned advocate Mr. Yash Shah. 11. Our attention is drawn to the decision of M/s Yashi Constructions (supra) on the part of the respondent whereas reliance is placed on the part of the petitioner on the decision of M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited Vs Union of India and in Special Civil Application No. 12366 of 2021. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had opted for SVLDRS scheme and was required as per the department to make the payment of Rs 81,051.60/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving considered the submissions along the line of the pleadings of respective parties noticed that the petitioner was required to make certain payment as determined and inform in SVLDRS 3 and the petitioner also tried to make payment through NEFT. The relevant paras are as under : 9. 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 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 Schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants sought to move through Resolution professional (RP) an application within the period prescribed under the scheme . It had issued the form and the last date for making the application under the scheme was 31.12.2019 . The form was issued within the prescribed time limit and the tax dues were computed by the appellant as per the Scheme 2019. The Form No. 3 was issued by the Designated Committee on 25.2.2020 determining the amount due and payable under the Scheme where the appellant was required to pay Rs 1,24,28,500/- . within a time period of 30 days as per the form no. 3. 20. In view of Covid 19 pandemic the time to make payment was extended by the Government upto 30.6.2020. The NCLT approved the Resolution plan of the successful Resolution applicant vide order dated 24.7.2020 and on approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, the moratorium period came to an end, with the closure of insolvency procedure on 24.7.2020 . 21. The request was made by the applicant and expressed his willingness to make the full payment as ascertained by the Designated Committee in Form No. 3. It was denied by the Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that the same could not be paid before 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
