9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department in the process of recovery of arrears. As the petitioner could not comply the terms as mentioned in the scheme and had not made the payments within the stipulated period, the petitioner could not avail the benefit offered under the said scheme. The petitioner was required to follow the provisions of the scheme in toto and to pay the amount determined under SVLDRS Form-3 within the stipulated time in terms of Section 127 (4) of the Finance Act, 1994. The recovery made by the Department under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be considered as payment made by the petitioner under SVLDRS scheme. Since there was a legal impediment because of which the petitioner therein could not comply with the requirement, interference was made. This is trite that a singular different fact/point may change the precedential value of a judgment. Conclusion - 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, there is no need to interfere with the attachment order passed by the Department against the petitioner. As such, there are no merit in the contention of the learned Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand for payment of service tax for Rs. 74,30,019/-, Rs. 11,75,556/-, Rs. 1,11,663/- and Rs. 2,00,849/- along with interest, penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, further penalty of Rs. 200/- per day and further 25 % penalty on the amounts demanded and for appropriation of Rs. 24,44,128/-, which was already paid against service tax liability. (iii) On 27.08.2019, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 vide F.No. 267/78/2019/CX-Pt.III termed as Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. As per the said scheme, all cases pending for adjudication or appeal (at any Forum), to an extent of 70% of the duty involved are covered, if it was Rs. 50,00,000/- or less. Subsequently, another Circular No. 1072/05/2019-CX dated 25.05.2019 was issued with certain amendments and the case of the petitioner was covered thereof. As per the subsequent circulars, time was extended for compliance. The Parliament also approved the Amnesty Scheme under the Finance Act, 2019 and the Government notified the same on 21.08.2019. The final date for making the above payment was 30.03.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the value of the property and asked the petitioner to provide the documents of the property. The petitioner rushed to the office of the respondents, but, as they refused to hear him, filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Ms. D.Pallavi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner had already paid the amount ascertained under the scheme. Only due to financial problems and other difficulties, he could not remit the balance amount in time. For the delay, the petitioner could not be subjected to such harsh decision for payment of huge amount. The immovable property belonging to the individual director of the partner company of the petitioner, could not be subjected to attachment as per the provision of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was ready to pay interest amount for the delay that occurred in paying the balance amount, as ascertained to be payable by the petitioner under the said scheme. The COVID-19 pandemic situation made it difficult for the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 24.03.2021 in the Government Account after pursuing SBI Treasury Branch. As the amount mentioned in SVLDRS Form-3 was not paid by due date i.e. 30.06.2020 by the petitioner, the resolution mechanism provided under the scheme and the provisions of the scheme were not applicable to the petitioner. The part amounts recovered under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be adjusted under SVLDRS 2019. Further, the Department issued a letter dated 13.01.2021 to the Sub-Registrar Office, Shankarpally requesting the authority not to entertain any transaction in the immovable property of Sri N. Srinivas Reddy, the Managing Director of partner company of the petitioner. A notice of recovery was also issued to the partner on 19.01.2021 and the same was served in person on 08.02.2021 and 25.02.2021 respectively. Further action of auctioning was being undertaken by the Department. A Government Valuer was also appointed vide letter C.No. HQRS/ARC/21/2020-RR dated 24.05.2021 for valuation of the immovable property attached. 7.1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC further stated that as the petitioner had not made the payment within the stipulated period under the scheme, he cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abka Vishwas Scheme application on 02.10.2019 and subsequently SVLDRS Form-3 was issued by the designated committee for payment. The petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs. 35,23,866/- by the due date i.e. by 30.06.2020. But he failed to pay the said amount by the said date. The plea taken by the petitioner was that due to COVID-19 pandemic, as the business was completely closed, they could not generate any funds, could not make payment within the said time. However, as per the petitioners they accumulated funds and paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 07.01.2021 and Rs. 20,23,866/- on 01.03.2021 and completed the payment of balance amount. 11. As per the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, as the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, the case was placed under recoverable category of arrears and recovery proceedings were initiated and on the letters issued by the Department to the respective banks, the amount was recovered. 12. Thus, the amounts recovered were not payments made by the petitioner within the stipulated period, but subsequently by the Department in the process of recovery of arrears. As the petitioner could not comply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
