9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20. Whether the time limit fixed under the Scheme can be extended by this Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070 of 2022, titled as M/s Yashi Constructions versus Union of India Ors. [ 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] , has replied this question in negative holding that the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the petitioner could not point out any legal impediment or bar to make the payment within the stipulated time. So far as the alleged technical glitch, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng its Central Excise Returns, but, due to the financial hardship, the petitioner-Company could not deposit the Central Excise Duty. There was no suppression on the value of the figures of manufacture and clearance in the Central Excise Returns filed by them. As on 1st July, 2017, the petitioner-Company was having the liability in the shape of Central Excise Duty to the tune of ₹ 32,26,613/-. 3. In the year 2019, a scheme, namely Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, has been launched by the respondents, wherein, the pending cases could be settled by paying an amount equal to 50% of the tax amount. This Scheme was announced by the Finance Minister in the Union Budget for the year 2019-20. The budget proposal was enacted in Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 2019. The said Scheme was launched as one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of Central Excise, as well as, Service Tax. 4. The petitioner-Company has also highlighted the salient features of the Scheme and pleaded that the petitioner- Company had applied for settlement, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Consequently, SVLDRS-1 (Annexure P-2) was issued on 26th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to ₹ 32,26,613/-. After verification, SVLDRS-3 for a sum of ₹ 10,90,646 was issued, on 28th January, 2020, to the petitioner-Company, under Section 127 of the Finance Act of 2019 read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019. 9. As per the provisions of Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner-Company was required to pay the outstanding tax dues electronically, within thirty days from the date of issuance of SVLDRS-3. However, the petitioner-Company has failed to pay the amount estimated by the Designated Committee and made effort to put the blame on technical issues. The said Scheme was extended up to 30th June, 2020 vide Notification, dated 14th May, 2020, but, the petitioner-Company again failed to discharge the tax dues, even after the extension of the last date to deposit the dues to resolve the case. 10. Elaborating their stand, it is the case of the respondents that the other applicants have made the payment through the same portal and no technical issues were faced by them and moreover, the petitioner-Company has not contacted the Helpdesk to resolve its issues. 11. The respondents have also pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070 of 2022, titled as M/s Yashi Constructions versus Union of India Ors., has replied this question in negative. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced, as under: In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. 20. In another case, in Civil Appeal No. 8957 of 2022, titled as M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited (Unit Hotel Orient Taj) versus Union of India, the Hon ble Supreme Court has again elaborately discussed the applicability of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The operative para 8.1 of the judgment is reproduced, as under: 8.1 Now so far as the observations made by the High Court to the effect that the High Court cannot, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued on 28th January, 2020. As per Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the petitioner- Company was required to pay the amount payable, as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Committee, electronically, through internet banking, within a period of thirty days, from the date of issuance of such statement. 23. Admittedly, this amount has not been deposited within the stipulated time and the first communication, which was made by the petitioner with the authorities, was made on 28th February, 2020, i.e. after the expiry of thirty days. 24. Even otherwise, the present writ petition is also bad for delay and laches, as the intimation regarding the alleged technical glitch was made by the petitioner-Company, after the expiry of the statutory period, i.e. 28th February, 2020, and the present writ petition has been filed before this Court only on 21st July, 2022. The futile attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company by putting forward the plea of restrictions imposed worldwide, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, is also not liable to be accepted. 25. Considering all these facts, especially the factual position of the present case, in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
