9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of 31.10.2021 had lapsed. Suppose the object of the VsV Act is to reduce the pending tax litigations, grant relief to eligible declarants and generate substantial revenue for the Government. In that case, such an approach cannot be said to be in furtherance of such an objective. Such an approach almost amounts to frustrating the provisions of the VsV Act, and the scheme made thereunder. In this case, the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly Rs. 2,21,862/-. From the facts borne out of the record, it is difficult to hold that there was any such delay. Even if it is assumed that there was some marginal delay, this delay is attributable to the technical glitches referred to by the Petitioner and also the mistakes of the Respondents in processing the Petitioner's declaration. As noted even if the contention about technical glitches is kept aside, this is a matter where the Respondents themselves committed several errors in processing the Petitioner's declaration in Form l, which was made within the prescribed period and by due compliance with the prescribed procedure. This is a matter where the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21) and Rs. 19,48,111/-(if paid after 31.03.2021). 5. The Petitioner pointed out that the above figures were patently erroneous, and therefore, the Petitioner approached the Respondents to get the errors corrected. After numerous follow-ups by the Petitioner, the Respondents acknowledged their error and assured the Petitioner that the fresh Form 3 under the VsV Act would be issued to the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has pleaded that in June 2021 or thereabouts, the Respondents closed their old website and migrated to a new website. The Petitioner has pleaded that, as a result, there were several technical glitches in accessing the new website. The Petitioner has pleaded that this technical error continued beyond September 2021. As a result, the Petitioner was disabled from accessing the e-filing account until the first week of October 2021. 7. The Petitioner has further pleaded that after numerous follow ups by the Petitioner to correct the amount payable by the Petitioner, the authorised representative of the Petitioner was informed that the Respondents had uploaded corrected and revised Form 3 dated 01.09.2021 in the Petitioner's e-filing account on the new website of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 2023 or thereabouts, the Petitioner claims that her authorised representative was informed that communication dated 01.04.2022 was posted in her e-filing account. 14. Accordingly, the Petitioner's representative downloaded the letter dated 01.04.2022 from the e-filing account in which the Respondent admitted that the Petitioner had made a payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- on 12.10.2021. But this communication stated that the Petitioner ought to have paid Rs. 16,26,482/- since such payment was made after 30.09.2021. Based on this new reason, once again, the Petitioner's declaration under the VsV Act was rejected. 15. The Petitioner, by her communication dated 13.02.2023, protested the rejection of her declaration under the VsV Act and instituted this petition to challenge the communications dated 22.01.2022 and 01.04.2022 denying her benefit under the VsV Act. 16. Mr Sarda learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the VsV Act is beneficial legislation to reduce litigation indirect taxes and to enable the revenue to recover the pending tax dues. He submitted that there were technical glitches on account of migration from the old website to the new website. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (2023) 149 taxmann.com 482 (Bom.) and Vidhi Garments (P) Ltd. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Another-(2023) 7 NYPCTR 30 (Del) in support of his contentions. 21. Ms Linhares, at the outset, submitted that there were no technical glitches, and Form 3 dated 01.09.2021 was uploaded on the same date, i.e. 01.09.2021 itself. She produced on record a printout from the website along with acknowledgement to show that Form 3 was uploaded on the website on 01.09.2021 itself. 22. Ms Linhares submitted that in terms of Form 3 dated 01.09.2021, the Petitioner had time up to 30.09.2021 to pay the amount of Rs. 14,04,620/-. The Petitioner also had the liberty to pay an increased amount of Rs. 16,26,482/- up to 31.10.2021. She submitted that the Petitioner, however, paid only Rs. 14,04,620/- on 12.10.2021, i.e. beyond 30.09.2021, when the correct amount payable by the Petitioner on the said date would have been Rs. 16,26,482/-. She submitted that because the Petitioner failed to pay the correct amount on or before the due date, the Respondents were justified in rejecting the Petitioner's declaration. She submitted that the Petitioner makes no case for quashing the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted tax arrears constitute nearly one year of direct tax collection'. The tax disputes consume copious amounts of time, energy and resources both on the part of the Government as well as taxpayers. Moreover, they also deprive the Government of the timely collection of revenue. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide for the resolution of pending tax disputes. This will benefit not only the Government by generating timely revenue but also the taxpayers, who will be able to deploy the time, energy and resources saved by opting for such dispute resolution towards their business activities. SOR then proceeds to list benefits under the VsV Act. 28. The Petitioner, in her declaration in Form 1 submitted on 29.01.2021, correctly assessed the amount payable under the VsV Act at Rs. 14,04,620/-. This Form had to be processed within 15 days as required under Section 5(1) of the VsV Act, i.e. by 13.02.2021. However, after processing, Form 3 was issued on 25.02.2021, and that too with an error in computing the amounts. Form 3, issued on 25.02.2021, stated that the amount payable by the Petitioner was Rs. 16,97,010/- (if paid on or before 31.03.2021) and Rs.19,48,111/- (if paid afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed Form 4 within 15 days of the receipt of Form 3 and in any case before 31.10.2021, an amount of Rs. 14,04,620/- was paid by the Petitioner on 12.10.2021 and the Respondents even acknowledged this. The acknowledgment is on page 106 of the paper book of this petition. Therefore, to say that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or that the Petitioner had not made any payment up to 31.10.2021 was not correct, and based upon such an incorrect premise, the impugned communication dated 22.01.2022 could not have been issued. 34. The Petitioner, therefore, pointed out the above facts with details to the Respondents, along with proof of acknowledgement. Again, there was no response from the Respondents. In February 2023, the Petitioner was informed that the response dated 01.04.2022 was posted in the Petitioner's e-filing account on the website. The Petitioner accordingly downloaded the response dated 01.04.2022 in which the factum of filing of Form 4 and payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- was acknowledged. However, this time, it was stated that since this amount was paid on 12.10.2021 and not before 30.09.2021, the Petitioner should have paid the amount of Rs. 16,26,482/-. The communicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consequent glitches. But for such glitches, it is unexplainable why the Respondents could not access the Petitioner's Form 4 and Petitioner's payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- which the Respondents duly acknowledged. This error was, however, acknowledged by the Respondents in the communication dated 01.04.2022, which again could be accessed by the Petitioner much later. 38. In the communication dated 01.04.2022, the Department did not allege that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or failed to make any payments to the Respondents. However, this time, it was alleged that the Petitioner made a short payment, due to which the Petitioner's declaration was not accepted. This is a reason quite different from that stated in the previous communication dated 22.01.2022. 39. Considering the above factual situation borne out from the record and the object of the VsV Act, the Respondents should have either accepted the Petitioner's payment of Rs. 14,04,620/- made within 15 days from the receipt of Form 3 or at least informed the Petitioner that she was required to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,21,862/- on or before 31.10.2021. The Respondents did neither. Even the requirement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issues about the power to condone etc., since the matter can be decided on a narrow factual base. However, even if it is considered that there was some marginal delay of 10 to 12 days, the Respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, were not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's declaration or holding that the Petitioner's declaration was null and void. 43 In Vidhi Garments (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that the assessee was quite vigilant and had reported substantial compliance. The assessee had deposited a major portion of the tax amount of Rs. 9 lakh even before the declaration was filed. On account of the assessee's Chartered Accountant not being vigilant in accessing the information and sharing his login ID and password, if there was a marginal delay, such delay should have been condoned and the deficit payments accepted. In the case before the Delhi High Court, the interest was paid for the delayed deposits. Here, the case of the Petitioner is on a much better footing because most of the glitches were on the part of the Respondent. Mr Sarda submitted that even in this case, at the highest, some interest and ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
