9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents Nos. 2 and 3, and thereafter, issue the SVLDRS Form 4 for full and final settlement of the dispute. [2] The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a declaration in the SVLDRS Form 1 on 31st December 2019 under the impression that their appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the appellate authority. However, the petitioner was advised that the appeal is already disposed of and therefore, the petitioner filed a revised declaration on 20th February 2020 with correct computation at the rate of 60% duty payable after adjusting their pre-deposit made during the investigation. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 issued the SVLDRS Form 3 on 23rd March 2020 directing the petitioner to pay balance amount of Rs. 12,32,643/-. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents authorities also held that reliance placed by the petitioner on the CBEC instructions dated 17th March 2021 is not applicable as this Court has not passed any adverse order against the decision of the Designated Committee. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High court in the case of Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs Union of India reported in 2021 (52) GSTL 11 (All.). [7] Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. [8] Learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made payment as per the directions issued by this Court within 15 days from the date of order i.e. 4th August 2021, however, the amount was not accepted by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not made the balance amount of Rs. 12,32,643/- within 30 days of the issuance of the SVLDRS Form 3 or within the extended period due to COVID-19 pandemic. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has not shown any details or facts with regard to financial difficulties for not making payment within the extended period. [10] Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India and others [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2070 of 2022 decided on 18th February 2022], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
