9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .9.2019 proposing to demand Service Tax at Rs. 70,82,343/- along with interest and penalty. The said show cause notice also proposed to appropriate the amount of Rs. 44,29,032 which was already paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore, vide Order-in-Original No.09/2019-JC dated 22.11.2019, confirmed the entire demand of Service Tax proposed in the show cause notice. 3. While so, the Union Budget presented a Scheme, viz., Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (in short, SVLDR Scheme) was introduced to settle the disputes relating to legacy laws, viz., Service ax, Central Excise Duty, etc., which are pending at various levels, by filing a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 in the electronic portal. The petitioner opted to file a declaration under SVLDRS Scheme in respect of the Service Tax dispute and settle the same and accordingly filed declaration, upon which, the Designated Committee, after verifying form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner, issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 13.2.2020. As per the Scheme, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 14,98,835.20 on or before 14.03.2020. In the mean time, the Government, considering the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, the petitioner is liable to pay the entire arrears of tax with penalty. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the introduction of SVLDR Scheme, the petitioner has availed the benefit by filing declaration vide Form SVLDRS-1 and the Designated Committee also issued Form SVLDRS-3, as per which, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 14,98,835.20 on or before 14.3.2020. Later, considering the pandemic situation, the Government extended the time limit for making payment under the scheme till 30.06.2020. However, due to financial crisis suffered by the petitioner due to lock down owing to pandemic, the petitioner could not make the payment. He would contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, vide order, dated 23.3.2020, has held that the period of limitation in all proceedings irrespective of limitation prescribed under General or Special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended with effect from 15.3.2020 till further orders. He would also submit that subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record. 9. In the present case, it is clear that by virtue of the Finance Bill, 2019, the SVLDR scheme was declared. Thereafter, the respondent had issued Notification No.04/2019 dated 21.08.2019 stating that the Assessees can avail the said scheme from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019. Subsequently, by virtue of Notification No.07/2019 dated 31.12.2019, the said period to avail the scheme was extended up to 15.01.2020. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had availed the scheme before 15.01.2020 and filed Form SVLDRS 1. The said Form was accepted and further, the Form SVLDRS 3 was also issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 13.02.2020. However, due to the COVID pandemic situation, the petitioner had remitted the demanded tax amount only on 02.03.2021 through a regular challan. Thereafter, the respondent was supposed to issue Form SVLDRS 4 to discharge the entire liabilities towards tax under the said Scheme. However, the same was not issued. 10. The learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government depends upon the situation prevailing in the country and extended the time limit from time to time. 15. It would be pertinent to point out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, suo motu, vide order dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.No.3 of 2020, had extended the Mandatory provisions of limitation under various Acts due to the reason of COVID pandemic from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Pursuant to the same, the respondent had also extended the time limit by considering the COVID pandemic situation. 16. Further, there is no doubt that if the provisions are mandatory in nature, this Court normally will not interfere and pass orders against the said provisions. As far as if the provisions are directory in nature, certainly the prevailing situation and the inability of the petitioner due to the said pandemic would be the factors that have to be considered by this Court to pass an appropriate order. In the present case, no doubt that the petitioner had paid the amount on 02.03.2021 during the pandemic period. Therefore, under these circumstances, certainly, this Court can interfere and look into the grievances of the petitioner and if this Court is satisfied, this Court will consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
