2023 (3) TMI 742 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit of the scheme Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - contention of petitioner is that he made efforts to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time stipulated but on account of technical glitches the amount was not accepted online - HELD THAT - The petitioner on failure to deposit the amount online for any reason had not even made any application for accepting the payment in the physical form. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS 2022 (3) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in an identical case held that the petitioner who has not deposited the amount within the time granted in the absence of any provision to extend the time is not entitled for any further time to deposit the same - The aforesaid judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court has not been disturbed even by the Supreme Court in M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER against the same has been dismissed on 18.02.2022. It may be pertinent to mention here that though the petitioner could not deposit the amount within the time of 30 days stipulated in the SVLDRS-3 he could not even deposit the said amount within the extended period of scheme which was extended up to 30.06.2020 - there are no material on record which could substantiate that the petitioner made effort to deposit the amount even on 22.06.2020 as alleged. There are no good reason to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks benefit under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019; Failure to deposit amount within stipulated time; Allegation of technical glitches preventing online payment; Reference to judgment of Allahabad High Court; Supreme Court dismissal of Special Leave Petition; Failure to deposit even within extended period.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition requesting permission to avail the benefits of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 by making the necessary payment as determined by the Designated Committee in Form-SVLDRS-3. The petitioner applied online for the scheme, but encountered technical issues preventing the online deposit of the required amount within the specified 30-day period. The petitioner argued that due to these glitches, denying the benefit solely based on missing the deadline would be unjust. The scheme allows for closure of indirect tax disputes under certain conditions. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific details of the technical glitches that hindered the payment and did not demonstrate any efforts to deposit the amount within the stipulated time.

The court referenced a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in a similar case, where it was held that without a provision for extending the deadline, failing to deposit the amount within the specified time disqualifies the petitioner from further opportunities to comply. The Supreme Court also dismissed a Special Leave Petition related to the Allahabad High Court's decision, affirming the ruling. Despite an extension of the scheme until 30.06.2020, the petitioner did not deposit the amount even within the extended period. The court found no evidence to support the petitioner's claim of attempting to deposit the amount even on the extended deadline of 22.06.2020. Consequently, considering the circumstances and lack of justification to intervene, the court dismissed the petition, declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.