9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. There is no doubt that if the provisions are mandatory in nature, this Court normally will not interfere and pass orders against the said substantive provisions of law. Since the provisions are directory in nature, based on the prevailing situation and the inability of the petitioner due to the said pandemic would be the factors that have to be considered by this Court to pass an appropriate order - In the present case, no doubt that the petitioner had paid the amount on 25.06.2021 during the pandemic period by virtue of the Court order. Under these circumstances, certainly, this Court can interfere and look into the grievances of the petitioner and if this Court is satisfied, this Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. This Court is of the view that the application, filed on 13.02.2023 consequent to the payment made by the petitioner, has to be accepted under the SVLDRS scheme by the respondent and in such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to direct the respondent to issue Form SVLDRS-4 to discharge the tax liabilities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his application under SVLDR Scheme and on such representation being made, the Board was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. However, the Board, vide letter in File No. CBIC-90224/3/2021-O/o- US(CX-VI)-CBEC dated 27.08.2021, rejected the representation. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has exercised option under SVLDR Scheme under which, a sum of Rs. 3,17,090/- has been quantified, but the petitioner has not paid the due amount even within the extended time granted upto 30.06.2020. As per Circular No.1071/42019-CX 8 dated 27.8.2019, if the declarant does not pay within the stipulated time, due to any reason, the declaration will be treated as lapsed. As regards the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14454 of 2020 is concerned, it is stated that since this Court only directed the Board only to consider the application under SVLDR Scheme and not directed specifically to accept the application. Since the petitioner has not made payment within the stipulated time, the declaration filed by the petitioner has been treated as lapsed and consequently, the petitioner is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. He pointed out that as there was no statutory provision to make any payment under the scheme beyond the stipulated period and once the petitioner failed to make the payment within the due date, he is not eligible to get the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. He also submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents considered the representation made by the petitioner and rightly rejected, which requires no interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record. 8. In the present case, it is clear that by virtue of the Finance Bill, 2019, the SVLDR scheme was declared. Thereafter, the respondent had issued Notification No.04/2019 dated 21.08.2019 stating that the Assessees can avail the said scheme from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019. Subsequently, by virtue of Notification No.07/2019 dated 31.12.2019, the said period to avail the scheme was extended up to 15.01.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading of the above orders makes it explicit that this Court had accepted the plea raised by the petitioner and permitted to make payment under SVLDR Scheme and after payment, directed the Board to consider the representation of the petitioner for acceptance of the payment under SVLDR Scheme and pass appropriate orders. It is a positive order and no contrary view could be taken, however, the respondents passed impugned order, which in the opinion of this Court, is unreasonable and cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 13. Thereafter, the respondent was supposed to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to discharge the entire liabilities towards tax under the said Scheme. However, the same has not been issued so far. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that the petitioner had availed the scheme within the prescribed time and hence, they had issued Form SVLDRS 3. However, though the intimation in Form SVLDRS 3 was issued on 13.02.2020, the demanded tax amount was paid only on 25.06.2021, which is beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, they are not in a position to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to the petitioner to discharge the tax liabilities. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the COVID pandemic situation. 20. Further, there is no doubt that if the provisions are mandatory in nature, this Court normally will not interfere and pass orders against the said substantive provisions of law. Since the provisions are directory in nature, based on the prevailing situation and the inability of the petitioner due to the said pandemic would be the factors that have to be considered by this Court to pass an appropriate order. In the present case, no doubt that the petitioner had paid the amount on 25.06.2021 during the pandemic period by virtue of the Court order. Under these circumstances, certainly, this Court can interfere and look into the grievances of the petitioner and if this Court is satisfied, this Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 21. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 27.09.2023 in Special Civil Application No.844 of 2022, was also placed before this Court, wherein the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the extension of time for making payment under the Scheme, was challenged. The said judgement dated 27.09.2023 was dismissed in the SLP stage itself without assigning any reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
