9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or it to do - The Apex Court holding as above allowed the appeal of the Appellant and setting aside the order of the High Court directed that the payment made by the Appellants therein be appropriated towards the settlement of dues under the SVLDR Scheme and the issue discharge certificate. Thus, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme merely on the basis of a technical issue of reversal of the amount paid by Petitioner prior to 30 June 2020 on the ground of expiry of challan for which clearly the Petitioner was not at fault. The Respondent-Authorities are directed to allow the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,74,860/- under the SVLDR Scheme pursuant to the subject SVLDRS-3 and thereafter, issue the necessary discharge certificate under the said scheme - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2023 - NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Raichandani with Mr. Rishab Jain i/b UBR Legal Advocates. For Respondents No. 3 to 7 : Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekar. For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Kush M. Lahankar. PC : Being aggrieved by the failure of the Respondent- Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement (RTGS) dated 22 June 2020 was initially accepted but the same was reversed and refunded to the Petitioner s account. Thereafter, Petitioner once again tried to generate new challan from the CBIC website, but was unsuccessful. Vide letter dated 7 July 2020, Petitioner communicated the same to the Respondents No. 4 and 5-Dy. Commissioner, CGST and Joint Commissioner, CGST and requested for regeneration of the challan. 5. On 13 July 2020, Petitioner received a phone call from the office of Respondent No.3-The Commissioner, CGST and was informed that a renewed challan can be generated from the office of Respondent No.3, if Petitioner is willing to make the payment, which statedly the Petitioner confirmed. However, it is submitted that since the Petitioner did not receive any regenerated challan, vide email dated 6 September 2020, he inquired about the status of payment reversed by the Respondent No.8-Bank. On 14 September 2020, Respondent No.7-Superintendent of Investigation team informed the Petitioner by email that date for payment was not extended by the Government. 6. Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner had exchanged e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... face of the fact that although the payment that was made vide RTGS dated 22 June 2020 was initially accepted but later on reversed and refunded to the Petitioner s bank account due to an expired challan. 11. The SVLDR Scheme is a Scheme that had been brought in by the Government put an end to legacy disputes in indirect tax matters which would benefit the tax payer, assessees as well as the Revenue. The tax payers would have the benefit of ending the legacy disputes with the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities would in turn unlock the Revenues that were locked up in such disputes. 12. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Shekhar Resorts Ltd. (supra) had while considering a challenge under the SVLDR Scheme held that the Appellant therein cannot be punished for not doing something which was important for it to do. The following paragraphs of the said decision are usefully quoted as under:- 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, the appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do. There was a legal impediment in the way of the appellant to make any payment du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible for him to do. 8.2 Now so far as the other ground given by the High Court, that the Designated Committees are not in existence, is concerned, it is required to be noted that the CBCE has issued a circular that in a case where the High Court/courts have passed an order setting aside the rejection of the claim under the Scheme after 30.06.2020, the applications can be processed manually. In many cases the High Courts have remanded the matter to the Designated Committees which consist of the officers of the Department and the applications thereafter are processed manually. 9. In view of the above, and under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, as the appellant was not in a position to deposit the settlement amount at the relevant time, more particularly on or before 30.06.2020 due to legal impediment and the bar to make the payment of settlement amount in view of the mortarium under the IBC, and as it is found that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit under the Scheme as the Form No.1 submitted by the appellant has been accepted, the Form No.3 determining the settlement amount has been issued, the High Court has erred in refusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f opportunity is given. To which the Petitioner replied immediately next day stating that the Petitioner is ready to pay the amount. The Petitioner issued communications that the Petitioner is unable to pay under old challan as it was not allowed since the Scheme of 2019 having been closed but new challan was not issued to the Petitioner. There is no explanation or denial in the reply affidavit regarding the e-mail sent on 15 July 2020 calling upon the Petitioner and several other declarants to comply with Form SVLDRS-3, and non-issuance of new challan. 13. Considering these circumstances, 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
