TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent authorities by issuing Discharge Certificate. The petitioners have filed Form SVLDRS-1 to avail the benefit of the scheme as per section 126 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 with regard to the tax dues determined under section 123 to avail the relief as per section 124 of the Act. The Designated Committee after verification of the declaration under section 126(1) issued a statement under section 127 in Form SVLDRS-3 on 16.03.2020 determining the amount of tax payable by the petitioners of Rs. 1,51,15,378/-. Thus the petitioners were found eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Therefore, the petitioners were required to make the payment of Rs. 1,51,15,378/- within 30 days i.e on or before 16.04.2020 which was extended due to Covid-19 pandemic by the Government upto 30.06.2020. From the record, therefore, it emerges that the petitioners have paid the amount from its bank account on 30.06.2020. The petitioners are not at fault for amount not transferred in the account of the Government by the bank on the same day on 30.06.2020. The stand taken by the respondent authorities is therefore, not tenable as once the amount has been debited from the bank account of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service with service tax amount to the petitioners in addition to certain commercial exigencies including severe financial liquidity crunch. 5.2) SVLDRS was introduced by Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 2019 on 21.08.2019 for the benefit of tax payer and with an object to reduce the burden of disputes pending under various Acts including service tax which have been subsumed under GST with effect from 1.07.2017. 5.3) Under SVLDRS a declaration was to be filed by declarant who is eligible under the provisions of the Scheme with willingness for payment of reduced amount of tax dues for its scrutiny by Designated Committee and thereafter on payment of amount determined by the Designated Committee on the declaration, the case of the tax of the declarant was required to be concluded by issuance of Discharge Certificate. As per Rule 7 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Rules 2019 (For short the Rules ), the amount determined by the Committee was required to be paid within 30 days of issuance of estimate in Form SVLDRS-3 by the Committee. 5.4) The petitioners filed a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 on 30.12.2019 under SVLDRS declaring Rs. 1,51,15,378/- as tax dues toward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner between July 2020 to January 2021 personally contacted and requested the officer of the Designated Committee for issuing Discharge Certificate for concluding and settling the case of tax dues for which the declaration was filed on 30.12.2019, however, there was no response nor any action taken by the Designated Committee. 5.15) The petitioners therefore, filed a detailed representation dated 5.02.2021 explaining the facts and also the error of website portal for which amount of Rs.1.51 crores could not be transferred to Government account during 29th and 30th June, 2020 and requested for issuance of Discharge Certificate. 5.16) It is the case of the petitioners that the representatives of the petitioners personally met and requested the officers working with Designated Committee from time to time for Discharge Certificate and closure of the pending case. 5.17) It appears that thereafter by letter dated 19.03.2022 (wrongly stated as 19.3.2020), the Assistant Commissioner (O A) of office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Ahmedabad-South informed the petitioners with the approval of the Designated Committee that the payment was not made within due date i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the ground that the payment was not made by the petitioners within the due date i.e. 30.06.2020 is without jurisdiction. 6.3) It was submitted that the limitation for depositing the requisite amount under the scheme was to expire on 30.06.2020 as extended by the notification issued under Rule 7 of the Rules and as such, the scheme was extended by virtue of notification dated 14.05.2020. It was therefore, submitted that once the amount was transferred on 1.07.2020 in the account of the Government, the petitioners could not have been denied the benefit of SVLDRS causing grave injustice because if the tax dues are not ordered to be settled by issuing Discharge Certificate under the Scheme even though the petitioners have paid the entire tax dues as determined by the Designated Committee, it would result in huge liability of payment of tax upon the petitioners. 6.4) It was submitted that the petitioners were not at fault for not transferring the amount to the account of Central Government and it was only because of the system error that such amount was not transferred within the period laid down by the Government under Rule 7 of the Rules. It was therefore, submitted that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapters 7 and 8 of the said Manual also explained the payment method. It was pointed out from Chapter 8 of the Manual provides that taxpayers will be able to make payments via NEFT/RTGS options only and that net-banking payment facility is not available for making payment in SVLDRS and after generation of the Challan, a mandate Form is required to be generated to make payment through NEFT/RTGS. It was submitted that the petitioners never made payment through NEFT/RTGS and tried to make payment through net-banking on the last date to avail the benefits under the Scheme and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the benefit to the petitioners. 7.3) Reliance was also placed on Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019 wherein it is stated that the scheme will be fully automated with a dedicated portal for online filing of the declaration and communication of final decision and therefore, if any technical error arises in the e-portal, same is required to be communicated by email to CBIC Mitra help-desk. It was submitted that the letter written by the petitioners on 30.06.2020 was replied vide letter dated 2.07.2020 pointing out that many other taxpayers have successf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Scheme will no longer be available. Thus, vide letter dated 19/3/2020, at Annexure L of the Petition, it was informed to the petitioner that as payment was not made within due date ie. 30/6/2020, the application was treated as lapsed and no SVLDRS-4 can be issued in this regard. 7.6) Referring to above averments, it was submitted that the respondent authorities have rightly not issued Discharge Certificate in facts of the case. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts emerging from the record, it appears that the payment made by the petitioners of Rs. 1,51,15,378/- on 30.06.2020 in the bank account of the petitioners and received in the concerned Government account on 1.07.2020 is not in dispute. Therefore, the short question which arises for consideration is that whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the declaration of the petitioners by not issuing Discharge Certificate by the Designated Committee under SVLDRS on the ground that the petitioners did not make payment within the stipulated time as per Rule 7 of the Rules. 9. On perusal of the bank statement furnished by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute that there was only time lag between the amount debited in the account of the petitioners and credited in the account of the Government. It is admitted by the respondent authorities in paragraph no.10 of the affidavit in reply extracted here in above that it is not in dispute that amount of Rs. 1,51,15,378/- was received on 1.7.2020 by the Government. 13. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities ought to have issued the Discharge Certificate to the petitioners without raising any dispute. 14. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to deny the benefit of SVLDRS to the petitioners are contrary to the basic legislative intent to grant benefits under SVLDRS to put an end to the dispute between the tax payers and the Revenue. The Designated Committee once having issued the Form SVLDRS 3 determining the amount of tax payable by the petitioners under the scheme could not have contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme on merits. 15. Had the amount of Rs. 1,51,15,378/- credited in the account of the Government before 30.06.2020, respondents would have issued Discharge Certificate as per the scheme. Only beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
