9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of various technical glitches they were not able to transmit this money and subsequently they tried many times but unfortunately they were not able to remit and finally on 25.08.2020, they were successful in remitting the said amount - even for the period beyond 30.06.2020 the Department was exploring various possibilities as to allow the scheme to those people who had been already issued SVLDRS-3 prior to 30.06.2020 but were not able to pay. In fact, as pointed out by the Appellant, the Department floated an internal letter dt. 14.07.2020, seeking certain information from the field formations to find out likely impact by extending the date. One of the major factors which was considered by the Hon ble High Court was Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in its suo moto Writ Petition IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] extending the period of limitation in all proceedings irrespective of limitations prescribed under general or special laws w.e.f. 15.02.2020 till further orders. In fact, the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/S. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. VERSUS AADITIYA J. GARG ANR. [ 2021 (1) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT] , held that the period of limitation which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position for imposition of interest and penalty and on adjudication, demand of Service Tax along with interest were confirmed and penalty was also imposed. The Original Authority has only relied on one sole ground for denying the amnesty scheme that the Appellant has failed to pay the determined amount within the due time frame. 2. Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the statutory provisions under the scheme, which came into effect on 01.09.2019 vide Notification No. 04/2019-CE(NT) dt.21.08.2019, upheld the OIO but modified the penalty amount by reducing it to 50%. The Appellants are in Appeal against the said Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.19.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order). 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant is mainly relying on various statutory changes brought in the scheme by way of amendment in Rule 7 and further extension of time limit to pay determined amount in order to avail the amnesty scheme. According to him, the time limit of 30 days was extended by a further period and it was initially extended up to 30.06.2020 and subsequently, up to 30.09.2020. He has also relied on various judgments, wherein, the Hon ble High Courts have ruled tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the scheme to those people who had been already issued SVLDRS-3 prior to 30.06.2020 but were not able to pay. In fact, as pointed out by the Appellant, the Department floated an internal letter dt. 14.07.2020, seeking certain information from the field formations to find out likely impact by extending the date. It is also noted that it was the Central Government which has made the amendments in the Rules for extending the time limit vide Notification No. 01/2020 dt. 14.05.2020, whereby, inter alia, in Rule 7, for the words within a period of thirty days from the date of its issue , the words, figures and letters on or before the 30th day of June, 2020 was substituted. This supports the facts that Rules were being amended by the Central Government to extend the date. 7. I have perused the judgments cited by the Appellants and I find that in most of these cases, the Hon ble High Courts, in the facts of the cases, have allowed the amnesty under the scheme even for the payments made beyond 30.06.2020. One of the major factors which was considered by the Hon ble High Court was Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in its suo moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020 dt.23.10.2020 extending the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er considered the difficulties faced by the Assessee nor issued any notifications extending the time limit for making payment of tax under the scheme. 8. Similarly, in the case of N. Sundararajan Vs UOI (cited supra), the Hon ble High Court has referred to Parliament Enactment of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 and held that in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter V of the Finance Act for completion of certain action as stipulated under Chapter V is extended till 30.09.2020 and finally held that time limit of completion of payment of taxes as quantified in Form SVLDRS-3 is still extended till 30.09.2020. The relevant para is reproduced below for ease of reference: 4. The Parliament enacted the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 (Central Act 38 of 2020) ( the Act for brevity). Chapter-V of the said Act related to relaxation of time limit under Central Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Finance Act, 1994. Section 6 of the said Act states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time limit under Indirect Tax Laws, which stipulates four Tax Laws, which includes Finance Act, 1994, we will be well justified in holding that the time limit for completion of the payment of taxes, as quantified in Form-3, also stood extended till 30.09.2020. If that is the date on which the appellants were required to complete the payment, then the appellant's conduct in approaching this Court by filing the writ petitions on 29.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 can very well be reckoned to be a conduct, which will not be hit by delay and laches. 9. In the case of Sew Infrastructure Ltd (cited supra), though the subject matter was the inability of non-payment of determined amount before 30.09.2020 on account of non-availability of funds which were due from Income Tax Department, the Hon ble High Court has taken a stand that in this case the amount could have been paid had the Income Tax Department had paid the amount in time. Therefore, the Hon ble Court held that for payments made even beyond the due date, the petitioner cannot be considered as defaulter under SVLDRS by considering that they would be deemed to have made payment before 30.06.2020. 10. In essence, all these judgments rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
