9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 not to declare the petitioner as defaulter under the SVLDRS scheme and not to disallow the benefits made available to it under the Scheme; (iii) Restraining the respondents from taking any coercive or punitive actions against the petitioner, its partners, directors of partners, officials and others and to close subsequent proceedings of attachment of individual immovable property of director of partner company of the petitioner by raising the attachment, in the interest of justice and pass such other orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The brief facts of the case that led to filing of the Writ Petition by the petitioner are that: (i) The petitioner was a Managing Partner of the partnership firm by name M/s. BricMor Developers. They started the business of development of immovable properties by way of construction of buildings. The respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner alleging non-payment of service tax and issued show cause notice, dated 23.11.2017 with a demand of service tax of Rs. 1,48,01,197/-. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Joint Commissioner, Central Taxes on 09.02.2018 and passed the Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of the balance amount, COVID-19 pandemic arrived and the business of the petitioner was completely closed. There was no inflow of funds. They could not even meet their regular expenses and could not generate any funds. As a bolt from the blue, the petitioner, who was looking after the business was infected with COVID-19 along with all his family members, their health suffered serious setback and he could not even attend to the office or to look after the business work and as such could not pay the amount as per the said scheme within the stipulated time. With great difficulty, the petitioner accumulated funds and paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by Demand Draft bearing No. 128010 dated 07.01.2021 and Rs. 20,23,866/- by Demand Draft bearing No. 128020 dated 01.03.2021 completing the payment of balance amount. 4. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 passed order dated 15.02.2021 attaching personal property of the director of the Company Sri Nallamilli Srinivas Reddy (the petitioner herein). The petitioner addressed letter to respondent No. 1 on 02.03.2021 explaining the facts and requested to raise the attachment. But the said request was not acceded by the respondents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBIC submitted that the petitioner failed to pay the amount mentioned in SVLDRS Form-3 by the due date i.e. 30.06.2020. As such, the recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 and notice was issued to the Corporation Bank, Gachibowli on 09.09.2020 for recovery of dues. Reminder letters were issued to Axis Bank and Corporation Bank for recovery of dues on 16.12.2020 (as the accounts of these banks were disclosed by the petitioner for SVLDRS payment) and to the petitioner M/s. BricMor Developers and M/s. BricMor Westpines for payment of pending dues. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount of Rs. 35,23,866/- mentioned in SVLDRS Form-3 by due date i.e. 30.06.2020, the case was placed under recoverable category of arrears. Accordingly, the recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- was made by taking action under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 from Union Bank, Gachibowli from the account of the party and a Demand Draft dated 07.01.2021 along with duly filled GAR-7 challan was submitted to SBI, Treasury Branch, Hyderabad. Further another Demand Draft for Rs. 20,23,866/- dated 01.03.2021 was recovered from Corporation Bank under Section 87 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration made under Section 125 shall be verified and statement in SVLDRS Form-3 shall be issued by the designated committee electronically within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the declaration. In terms of Rule 7 of the said rules read with Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the declarant shall pay electronically through internet banking, the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of such statement. In terms of Notification No. 07/2019 Central Excise-NT dated 31.12.2019, an amendment was carried in the Notification No.05/2019 Central Excise-NT dated 21.08.2019 to extend the due date to 15.01.2020 for filing declaration under Rule 3 (1) of SVLDRS Rules, 2019 read with Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019. In terms of Notification No. 01/2020-Central Excise (N.T) dated 14.05.2020. Rules 6 and 7 of SVLDRS Rules, 2019 were amended extending the due date to 31.05.2020 for verification of declarations filed and to issue statement of account payable by the designated committee and to 30.06.2020 for making the payments electronically through internet banking, the amount pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. Since there was a legal impediment because of which the petitioner therein could not comply with the requirement, interference was made. 15. This is trite that a singular different fact/point may change the precedential value of a judgment (see Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111). The interference was made by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited (supra) because the inability of the petitioner therein was arising out of a legal bar under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The said judgment cannot be stretched and made applicable in the instant case. 16. It is equally settled that the precedential value of a judgment relates to a point which has been actually decided and not what is logically flowing from it (see Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3) SCC 485). 17. As the petitioner was having interest in the firm and became Managing Partner of the firm after entering the reconstituted partnership deed dated 26.09.2015, we do not find any need to interfere with the attachment order passed by the Department against the petitioner. As such, we do not find any merit in the contention of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
