9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to make the payment as per Form SVLDRS-3 (ARN No. LD2612190003351, LD2612190003190 & LD2612190002344) (Annexure-K Collectively) and direct the Respondents to issue discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS -4 under sub-section (8) of Section 127 of the scheme; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct Respondent no. 3 to 5 to issue fresh challans to make payment of Rs. 1,07,03,884.20, Rs.74,38,078.20 & Rs. 16,56,830.80 and direct them to issue SVLDRS-4 , which will be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector of petitioner No.-1 Company. 4.2 The petitioner No. 1 opted for the CENVAT Credit Scheme contained in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to avail of Credit of specified Taxes paid on Input Services, and for utilization of such credit towards payment of specified taxes, leviable on the taxable services as well as on the finished goods. 4.3 On 29.11.2016, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) conducted inquiries against petitioner No. 1. The inquiry and investigation culminated in the show cause notice dated 05.07.2018 proposing to disallow and recover Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 1,78,39,807/- from petitioner No. 1 on the ground of wrongful availment of Input Cenvat Credit and wrong utilization for the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke Central Excise Act, the Service Tax Laws, etc. Under the Scheme, substantial relief was provided in the tax dues for all categories of cases as also full waiver of interest, fine and penalty with complete amnesty from prosecution. Under the Scheme, originally last date for payment of tax dues was 30.03.2020, however, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic it was extended up to 30.06.2020. 4.6 In view of introduction of the Scheme, the petitioner on 26.12.2019 filed declaration as required under the Scheme and submitted Form SVLDRS-1. In response to the Form SVLDRS-1, respondent No.3 on 14.01.2020 issued Form SVLDRS-3 for the amount to be payable of Rs.1,07,03,884.20/-. Due date for making payment was 30.06.2020, however on account of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No.-5, which the authority failed to consider. Therefore, interference of this court is required. 5.2 Learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment as declared in SVLDRS-1, if the time limit is extended. By placing reliance on the decision of High Court of Madras in case of N. Sundararajan vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 6324, learned Advocate submitted that case of the petitioner may be considered for extension of time and he may be permitted to avail the benefit of scheme by extending the time limit. He relied upon following paragraph: "5. Thus, in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter-V of the Finance Act for completion of certain acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coercive recovery proceedings being illegal, may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to avail the benefits of Scheme-2019 by permitting to pay tax dues as declared in SVLDRS-1. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for the respondents submitted that considering the COVID-19 pandemic, time limit originally granted for payment of tax dues up to 30.03.2020 was extended up to 30.06.2020. Accordingly, in terms of Ordinance read with Notification No.- 01/2020 - Central Excise (N.T.) dated 14.05.2020, the declarant under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme had to pay the estimated amount on or before the 30th June,2020 to avail benefits under the Scheme. In this case admittedly, the petitioner failed in making th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantamount to modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government."
8. Further, in view of the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashi Constructions (supra), reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of N. Sundararajan (supra), is misplaced.
9. In view of aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court cannot defer date of payment and modify the Scheme. The Scheme being prerogative of the Government and since the petitioner had not abided by the terms and conditions of the Scheme -2019, we could not see any reason to interfere. Hence, the present petition deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
