9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the time prescribed which was up to 30.06.2020. It is true that it was benevolent statutory scheme, but having cut-of date and not an on-going scheme. Thus, once the scheme was introduced as one time measure for specified period, any extension for payment would amount to modification of the Scheme, which is not permissible under the law. In the case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] the Hon ble Supreme Court has held ' 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 Sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of the present petition. (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including recovery in respect of the tax dues of Rs.1,07,03,884.20/-, Rs.74,38,078.20 and Rs.16,56,830.80; (D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the letter dated 16.02.2021 and stay the implementation/operation of the letter dated 16.02.2021 issued by Respondent no. 6 (Annexure-O); (E) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer B C above may kindly be granted; (F) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Cenvat Credit and wrong utilization for the payment of duties. The show cause dated 05.07.2018, also proposed to impose a penalty under Rule 15 (2) and Rule 15 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2003. Leavy of Interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act,1944 and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also proposed. Confiscation of goods involving excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,36,53,502/-and penalty under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was indicated. The said notice was also issued to various other co-noticee including petitioner No. 2, calling upon them as to why penalty under Rule 15 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, penalty under Rule 26 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was 30.06.2020, however on account of business being badly affected by Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not make the payment within time and therefore wrote a letter dated 16.07.2020 seeking extension of time. Vide letter dated 16.07.2020, respondent No. 5 was informed that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount as declared under SVLDRLS-1, hopefully before 30.09.2020. On 16.02.2021, respondent No. 5 issued notice initiating recovery proceedings, aggrieved by which present petition is filed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah, for the petitioners submitted that the Scheme-2019 was a benevolent scheme where due date for payment of tax was 30.06.2020. However, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the business of the petitioner was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act for completion of certain actions as stipulated under Chapter-V, stood extended till 30th September, 2020, and Section 6 of the Act deals with two situations, namely, period for completion and period of compliance. Therefore, the said provision has to be given a liberal interpretation and if we do so, the time limit for payment of taxes can be construed to be a time limit for completion of particular act, as stipulated under Chapter-V of the Finance Act. In fact, the said Act has also made certain amendments in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, in Chapter-IV. Thus, the intention of the legislation is to extend the time limit for compliance or completion of certain acts under the Statute, which have been listed therei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, the petitioner failed in making the payment of tax dues on or before 30.06.2020. Further, Scheme-2019 was not an openended statutory scheme. Sufficient time was provided to every declarant for payment. If a person wants to avail the benefit of a Scheme, he has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. In support of his submissions Learned Advocate relied upon decision of Hon ble Apex Court dated 18.02.2022, in case of Yashi Constructions v/s Union of India. Reported in 2022(58) G.S.T.L. 144 (SC). 7. Considered the submission and the decision relied upon. It is noticed that though benefit of the scheme was availed by the petitioner, he could not make the payment within the time prescribed which was up to 30.06.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
