TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2020 but such rejection itself would also have to be considered to be arbitrary from the point of view that the department could either have accepted the excess payment amounting to ₹ 1,25,629.60 or the excess amount of 40 paisa could have been returned to the petitioner instead of rejecting the entire amount - the subsequent offer of the petitioner to tender the exact amount and rejection of the same by the department on the ground that the payment was made on the last date of payment also cannot be accepted. The subsequent payment of the petitioner cannot be said to be a late offer of payment and it has to be construed to be an act of repayment of the amount which was already paid earlier but was rejected. The interest of just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umber 002000STUR01056292020062244417. As per the Mandate Form Details available at Page-25, the total duty amount the petitioner was liable to pay was ₹ 1,25,629.20 paisa and the payment was required to have been made before 30.06.2020. As the petitioner had paid an amount of ₹ 1,25,629.60 paisa in place of ₹ 1,25,629.20 paisa as was assessed, the payment was rejected, meaning thereby that by virtue of such rejection the petitioner was refused the benefit of the SVLDRS allowance scheme. On a representation being submitted, the authorities in the GST department had passed the speaking order No.01/2021/ SVLDRS, wherein in paragraph 19(e) thereof it was provided that as the last date of making payment of tax amount had not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner instead of rejecting the entire amount. 5. In the circumstance, the subsequent offer of the petitioner to tender the exact amount and rejection of the same by the department on the ground that the payment was made on the last date of payment also cannot be accepted. The subsequent payment of the petitioner cannot be said to be a late offer of payment and it has to be construed to be an act of repayment of the amount which was already paid earlier but was rejected. 6. In view of the above, interest of justice will be made if the amount required to be paid by the petitioner is paid and the department accepts it to be the payment that was made on or before 30.06.2020. The payment be made within two weeks from today. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
