9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the scheme which was clearly beyond the outer limit of the operation of the scheme. In the case of M/S Yashi Constructions vs. Union Of India [ 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] the Supreme Court held 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 the prerogative of the Government. Thus, if the case of the petitioner is accepted, then it would tantamount to modifying the scheme which cannot be done. Petition dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Appearance: For The Petitioner(S) No. 1 : Mr Anand Nainawati (5970) For The Respondent(S) No. 1 : Mr Harsheel D Shukla (6158) For The Respondent(S) No. 2,3,4 : Mr Nikunt K Raval (5558) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1. By way of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax payable shown in ST returns in full The details of the payment made by the petitioner vide various challans are as follows: Sr. No. Payment date CIN Amount (in Rs.) 1 09.08.2014 02926680908201490042 16/- 2 09.12.2014 02926680901201490135 14,731/- 3 04.05.2016 01305290405201600124 2,20,742/- 4 30.05.2016 01305293005201600033 1,58,181/- 5 17.06.2016 01305291706201600034 1,71,024/- 6 03.08.2016 01305290308201600118 1,76,083/- 7 03.08.2016 01305290308201600120 1,73,587/- 8 23.09.2016 00005292509201600001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 6 of the SV (LDR) Scheme Rules, 2019 shall be Rs. 13.12.890/-. 2.7 The petitioner being not so aware of law was under the belief that the payment already made will be adjusted against in the other SVLDRS applications filed by them, therefore, the petitioner accepted the SVLDRS 2 vide SVLDRS 2A. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the designated committee issued Form SVLDRS-3 in all the 5 declarations stating that the amount payable to avail benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme shall be Rs. 39,14,954/-without considering the amount of Rs. 27,93,323/- already paid by the petitioner during the period. 2.8 It is the case of the petitioner that due to the prevailing pandemic situation of COVID-19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance by way of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 and passed an order dated 23rd March 2020 extending the period of limitation in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings, irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed under the general or special laws with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further orders. 2.9 Thereafter, on 8th March 2021 it was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible as Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019 categorically states that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of the proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or deposited during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. (III) That the service tax amounting to Rs. 27,93,323/- during the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 without filing the ST-3 returns. That the same was also duly acknowledged by the respondents and the petitioner has not appropriated the said payment towards the service tax liability. However, the Respondent No. 2 has not considered the said amount as the amount already paid by the petitioner before filing declaration. Therefore, the SVLDRS 2 and the SVLDRS 3 issued by the Respondent No. 2 shall be liable to be set aside and new/fresh SVLDRS 3 shall be issued considering the amount of Rs. 27,93,323/- as the pre-deposit amount and the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings in Courts and Tribunals across the country and would not be applicable to the due date of payment under the SVLDR scheme. 4.3 Mr. Raval would submit that therefore, the submission of the petitioner that the respondents have not appropriate the payment towards the tax liability is factually incorrect. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and having peruse the papers what is evident is that the petitioner was under a misconceived belief that by virtue of extension of limitation periods by virtue of the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the same benefit would be available to the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short the Sabka Vishwas Scheme ). The Petitioner filed 5 declarations under the the Sabka Vishwas Scheme declaring liability as under: Sr. No. ARN Period Amount Liability Date of SVLDRS-1 1 LD3012190014222 Oct 14 to March 15 30,86,725/- 30.12.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
