9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o make payment online within 30 days from the date of uploading of SVLDRS-3. Petitioner knew the provision as he had chosen to take benefit of the scheme by uploading SVLDRS-1. He knew that within 60 days from the date of uploading of SVLDRS-1, SVLDRS-3 would be uploaded and he would be required to make the payment within 30 days from the said date. Therefore, the petitioner s contention that he could notice the SVLDRS-3 only on the website of the CBIC on or around 15.6.2020, and thereafter, he tried to make the payment but he failed for technical glitches is not convincing. The petitioner s allegation that there were technical glitches is not supported by any cogent and credible evidence. The petitioner ought to have made the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of indirect taxes, Government came out with notification No. 5 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 and framed rules governing the Scheme as SUBKA VISHWAS [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules, 2019. Under Rule 3, an applicant is required to file a Declaration in Form No. SVLDRS-1 wherein the applicant / declarant would be required to quantify the amount payable under the Scheme. Such declaration thereafter would be verified by Designated Committee constituted under Rule 5 of the Rules, and thereafter, as per statement prepared under Section 127(1) and (4) is specifying amount payable by declarant would be issued electronically in Form SVLDRS-3 within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the declaration as per Rule 6. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020. The petitioner had computed the amount payable under the Scheme as Rs. 13,895/-. The designated committee constituted under Rule 5 considered the petitioner s Form SVLDRS-1 and issued SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 mentioning payable amount as Rs. 13,895/- under the Scheme by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner noticed the said SVLDRS-3 on the CBIC website only on or around 15.06.2020 as no email or written communication was issued to the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, he had made attempts to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 13,895/- via online but due to technical glitches in the site, the petitioner could not succeed. The petitioner thereafter, contacted their Chartered A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax along with penalty under Section 78 and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents after they filed SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020 and they could notice the SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 only on the website of the CBIC. Thereafter, they tried to make payment of the amount mentioned in the SVLDRS, however, they could not make the payment for the reason of technical glitches in the site. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for technical glitches in the site of the CBIC, which was the reason for the petitioner not able to make the meager payment of Rs. 13,895/-. The petitioner was always willing to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken place. The petitioner instead of filing the appeal has approached this court invoking the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not maintainable against the order of adjudication. The petitioner may file the appeal, if he is aggrieved by the order of adjudication. 12. The learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the order in the case of Yashi Constructions v. Union of India and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 723], in support of the submission that, if the declarant failed to deposit the amount as per SVLDRS-3 within 30 days time period prescribed in the scheme, no relief should be granted to such declarant and the limitation period to make deposit under the scheme should not be extended. 13. I have considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Leave petition against an order of the jurisdictional High Court refusing to extend the time under the scheme for making payment as per SVLDRS-3. In Yashi Construction (supra), the short order of the Supreme Court reads as under:- 1. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme, i.e., within 30 days. 2. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
