TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t The facts on record indicate 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. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed. At the same time, a sum of Rs. 2,83,14,2710/- has remained with the petitioner after an amount of Rs. 2,83,14,330/- was debited from the petitioner's Account after cheque issued by the petitioner on 30.06.2020 was cleared and re-credited. Petition disposed off. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Sarav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner's account on account on 01.07.2020 on account of mis-match in chalan amount. Relevant portion of the aforesaid communication read as under:- On 30.06.2020, we got RTGS request from you via cheque No.886305 to RBI of Rs. 2,83,14,330/- . We have transferred the RTGS amount on 30.06.2020 itself for Rs. 83,14,271, 1,00,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,00,000/- accumulating a total of Rs. 2,83,14,330/- . The amount is returned to your account on 01.07.2020 Mismatch in Challan amount is the reason for return of amount. As per our bank policy we are not able to Transfer more than one Crore in a single RTGS. The same we have informed the customer also. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has sent several reminders to resend amount b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India and 4 Others, W.P.No.9769 of 2020 dated 15.06.2021, the benefit is not available to the petitioner. It is submitted that the scheme came to an end on 30.06.2020. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents. 9. This Court in Subramaniya Siva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., vs. Union of India, 2022(67) G.S.T.L 424 (Mad.) in para 22 to 24, held as under:- 22. The facts on record indicate 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai and Another) dated 30.11.2021. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no jurisdiction in not accepting the declaration of the petitioner under the scheme or in not accepting the payment by the petitioner belatedly. I therefore direct the respondents to accept the payment from the petitioner, if the amount has not been paid or collected from the petitioner already, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and bring a closure in true spirit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. 11. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed. At the same time, a sum of Rs. 2,83,14,2710/- has remained with the petitioner after an amount of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
