9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In this regard, it is informed that as per para 10(j) of Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019(as amended) with respect to SVLDRS scheme; " the declarant shall pay the amount indicated in the statement issued by the designated Committee on or before 30th day of June, 2020. If the declarant does not pay within the stipulated time, due to any person, the declaration will be treated as lapsed". 03. Since the due date for payment of tax dues was 30.06.2020 and no extension of time for payment of dues or whatsoever has been provided by the CBIC till date, your request for payment of dues towards the applications filed under the SVLDRS 2019 cannot be considered at this juncture. 04. This is for your kind information." 3. By the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE dated 19.10.2020 passed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has rejected the petitioner's appeal against O/O No.2/2019 C.Ex (AC 1 Dvn ) dated 1/5/2019 Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Salem -1 Division . 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that there were about five different cases against the petitioner, one of which was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present writ petitions. 12. The learned counsel for the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 also drew attention to the averments in paragraph:8 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Salem Commissionerate vide his Communication dated 19.08.2020 bearing reference C.No.IV/16/862/2019-GST CELL dated 19.08.2020 in response to its office letter dated 18.08.2020 stated that upon issuance of SVLDRS Form3 by the Designated Committee a 10 digit challan was automatically generated and payment was to be made by a declarant under such challan only. However, if the declarant makes payment under Non SVLDRS challan, the same has to be intimated to the Designated Committee for rectification through DG Systems, Delhi. It was informed by the Deputy Commissioner that the assessee's claim regarding off-line payment made needs to be verified and if found correct the matter will be taken with DG Systems, Delhi for rectification and issuance of SVLDRS Form 4. It is therefore submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 13. The fifth respondent bank has also filed a separate co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses; (g)That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; (h)That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him; (i)That when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:- As to illustration (a)- A shop-keeper has in his till a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business; As to illustration (b)-A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man's death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; As to illustration (b)-A crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence; Ashok Kumar Uttam Chand Shah v. Patel Mohmad Asmal Chanchad, AIR 1999 Guj 108. (v)A court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder; Mukund alias Kundu Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 359. (vi)The recovery made some days after the dacoity does not raise a presumption under section 114(a) in respect of the offence of dacoity; Vasant alias Roshan Sogaji Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 104 (Bom). 17. A question that needs to be addressed in these writ petitions are whether the petitioner can be denied of the benefit of settling these cases under the aforesaid scheme on account of the technical problem which arose after the petitioner successfully made payment through the bank using the RTGS facility under a bonafide belief that the petitioner was entitled to make such payment through 5th respondent in terms of the Chapter V under Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019. 18. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the scheme the petitioner debited an amount of Rs.9,79,028/- through the 5th respondent which included a sum of Rs.41,331.20/- being the amount payable under the scheme in respect of the Appeal No.15 of 2019 which was pending before the 4th respondent and that the petitioner was yet to receive a copy of tax discharge certificate in SVLDRS Form-4. 22. The facts on record indicates that the amount of Rs.41,331.20/- was indeed paid by the petitioner which however was re-credited back due to technical glitches. Therefore, the legitimate the benefit of the above scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner. Mistake is on account of the system evolved which failed to accept the payment. 23. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed and the communication stands quashed by permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts in respect of which attempt was made by the petitioner to pay through the 5th respondent RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility on 29.03.2020 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 24. If the petitioner pays the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
