9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the facts were very similar to the facts in the present case. In this factual scenario, the Gujarat High Court held in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner made bona fide attempt to make the payment as determined under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the Scheme along with interest for the period for which the petitioner was not permitted to make payment by respondent authorities considering extreme Pandemic condition of Covid-19, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the case of L.G. Chaudhary, the Gujarat High Court held that the bona fide attempt made by the Petitioner therein to make the payment could not be doubted and substantive benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme could not be denied to the Petitioner therein on the ground of procedural technicalities, more particularly in time of COVID-19 Pandamic. In the present case, the Petitioner tried to make payment within the stipulated period of 30 days from the issuance of Form SVLDRS-3, as provided under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, but due to a technical internet banking error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents. 5. In the meantime, the Central Government introduced the Sab Ka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( Sabka Vishwas Scheme ) to bring an end to pending litigation under the erstwhile indirect tax regime. On 8th December 2019, the Petitioner filed Form SVLDRS-1 under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme to bring an end to the investigation initiated by the Respondents wherein the Petitioner declared the tax dues as Rs. 43,37,865/-. 6. As per the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, within 30 days of the declaration in Form SVLDRS-1, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were required to issue Form SVLDRS-2 and call the assessee for a personal hearing if the amount declared by the assessee in Form SVLDRS-1 was not acceptable to the Respondents. Despite the same, the Respondents rejected the application of the Petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner with the reason amount not quantified . 7. The Petitioner challenged the said decision by filing a Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 848 of 2020. By an Order dated 12th February 2021, this Court remanded the matter to the Respondents to reconsider the application of the Petitioner. 8. Thereafter, Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Union of India 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 174 (Guj.) and a decision of this Court in Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) 6 Centax 31 (Bom.). 13. On the other hand, Ms. Bhakti Date, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that it is a settled position of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular scheme like the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, had to abide by the terms and conditions of the said Scheme scrupulously. She submitted that, if the time limit provided under the said Scheme is extended, it would tantamount to modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government. She submitted that the Petitioner ought not to have waited till the last date to make payment. Since the Petitioner waited till the last date to make payment, if the said payment did not go through within time due to a technical glitch, then the Respondents were right in not accepting the payment and rejecting the Petitioner s application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the Order of the Supreme Court in Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 144 (SC). Accordingly, Ms. Date submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide attempt to make the payment as determined under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay the amount in question in accordance with the Scheme along with interest for the period for which the petitioner was not permitted to make payment by respondent authorities considering extreme Pandemic condition of Covid-19, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Yashi Constructions (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the petitioner made a bona fide attempt to make the payment within the stipulated time, however, due to technical issues the same was not credited in the account of the respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit under the Scheme. 12. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to accept the payment of Rs. 38,64,256/- as specified in SVLDRS-3 dated 16-03-2020 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30-06-2020 till the date of payment and grant the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bank which shows that the Petitioner on 24 June 2020 had made payment of Rs. 7,69,317/- and the Petitioner has placed on record the Bank statement and RTGS slip acknowledgment of the Bank confirming the payment made out of which SMS was received from the Bank. In the reply affidavit, these facts have not been disputed. 11. In the case of M/s. L.G. Chaudhary (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat considered the identical situation where the Petitioner therein tried to make the payment through NEFT as per Form SVLDRS-3 on 30 June 2020 and because of the technical problem on the part of the Bank, the payment was returned to the Petitioner. The Division Bench considered the law on the subject and the argument of the Respondents that the payment was not made within the time. The Court held that since the Petitioner therein made bona fide attempt to make payment within the stipulated time, the petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to accept the payment. In exercise of a writ jurisdiction, the Division Bench directed that the payment should be made along with interest. 12. The second aspect is that the Respondents on 15 July 2020 by an e-mail called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and the Petitioner s payment under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme ought to be accepted by the Respondents. 19. As far as the Order of the Supreme Court in Yashi Constructions (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondents is concerned, same reads as under: Order - 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. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. 3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 20. On a perusal of the said Order, it is very clear that and as held by the Gujarat High Court, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
