TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the bank account. It cannot hence be assumed that the petitioners were not aware of the return of remittance having been made in their account. As per Rule 9 of the Sab Ka Vishwa (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 , designated committee on being satisfied of payment of amount in full as determined by it shall issue electronically a discharge certified under sub Section (8) of Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019 within 30 days of the payment and submission of proof. Had the petitioners remitted the amount of ₹ 10,30,274/- on 30.06.2020, on an after 31.07.2020 they would have certainly made efforts for procuring a discharge certificate as aforesaid. However, there is absolutely no whisper in the entire petition as regards a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Verma For the Petitioner : Shri Manoj Munshi, Advocate For the Respondents : Shri Prasanna Prasad, Advocate ORDER 01. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to accept the amount of tax of ₹ 10,30,273.60/- which was returned inadvertently due to mismatch in the amount remitted. 02. As per the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a registered company engaged in manufacturing of FRP Fans and Cooling Towers. By a notice dated 09.05.2017, the petitioners were directed to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 25,75,684/- should not be recovered from them under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that remittance to respondents has been affected. 05. The petitioners came to know about return of remittance when reminder for payment dated 03.02.2021 was received by them. They made enquiries regarding reasons for the same and came to know that due to mismatch in the amount remitted and the amount payable the system has returned the remittance. Thereafter, they approached respondent No.3 for acceptance of payment but since the scheme was already closed, no response was received by them. Thereafter, on 22.06.2021, the petitioners have once again received demand of tax of ₹ 25,75,684/- along with interest and penalty, hence have filed this petition. 06. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that return of remittance ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment a discharge certificate was to be issued by the department and if petitioners had reasons to believe that their transfer had been effected, they would have certainly pressed for grant of discharge certificate in their favour. However, the same was not done by them. The petitioners have been fully aware of non- transfer of the amount and have been enjoying the same ever since then by keeping it in a fixed deposit. The last date for scheme was 15.01.2022 which has lapsed hence no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shekhar Resorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 11 (All.) 08. Having heard the learned counsel for the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is absolutely no whisper in the entire petition as regards any effort to that effect having been made by the petitioners. As per the petitioners if they had made the payment they would have certainly insisted upon issuance of the certificate. 10. Though the scheme stood lapsed the petitioners did not pursue the matter further and kept absolutely quite about it. They were served with a demand notice on 03.02.2021 requiring them to deposit dues of ₹ 25,75,684/ along with interest and penalty of 25,75,684/- by petitioner No.1 and penalty of ₹ 26 Lakhs by petitioners No.2 3 thereupon. The natural course of conduct for the petitioners upon service of the said notices would have been to take up the matter with the department info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter thought and an effort by them to wriggle out of the lapses on their part. In any case the Amnesty scheme has already come to an end hence no benefit under the same can be granted to the petitioners. In this regard reliance has rightly been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision in Shekhar Resorts Ltd. (supra). 13. The orders which have been passed in other cases in respect of the scheme are all on different factual matrix and no general principle of law has been laid down therein. On the facts as pleaded in the present petition, the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs. For all the aforesaid reason, we find that this petition is devoid of any merits, hence is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
