IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a taxpayer should not be penalized for technical issues that prevent compliance with payment obligations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, reinforcing the scheme's purpose of reducing litigation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Jitendra Jain, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges letters dated 9th November 2020 and 5th January 2021 issued by Respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Belapur, Navi Mumbai whereby Respondent No.4 has informed the Petitioner that the application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ('SVLDRS') cannot be processed since the Petitioner has failed to make the payment of the amount mentioned in SVLDRS-3 form and, therefore, the Petitioner is directed to make the payment of the demand raised vide Order-In-Original ('O-I-O') dated 9th February 2017 and issued on 21st June 2017.

3. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing technical testing and analysis certification services. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued in the year 2015, an O-I-O came to be passed on 9th February 2017 raising a demand notice of Rs.64,20,907/-. The said O-I-O was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.1530 of 2019.

4. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, Respondent No.1 introduced the SVLDRS. The object of the scheme was to give an opportunity to the assessees to pay up the demand and reduce litigation. On 31st December 2019, the Petitioner filed a declaration in form SVLDRS-1 to avail the benefit of the scheme. As a pre-condition for availing the benefit of the scheme, the Petitioner also withdrew the above referred Writ Petition No.1530 of 2019.

5. On 25th February 2020, Respondent No.3 issued Form SVLDRS-3 informing the Petitioner to make payment of Rs.25,68,362.50/- within 30 days to avail the benefit of the scheme. On 26th March 2020, Petitioner generated challan for making the said payment and after the said challan was generated on the portal of the Respondents, the Petitioner was directed to another portal for making the payment. However, a technical error appeared and, therefore, Petitioner was not able to make the payment. The date for making the payment was thereafter extended by the Respondents upto 30th June 2020 by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Petitioner informed the Respondents about the said error. On 9th November 2020, Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that since they have not made payment, their application cannot be processed further.

6. It is on the aforesaid backdrop that the Petitioner is before us today.

7. The Petitioner submits that it had generated the challan on the portal within 30 days of the issue of Form SVLDRS-3 and further clicked the 'make payment' option, but an error was shown on the screen and, therefore, they could not make the payment within 30 days from the date of issue of Form SVLDRS-3. The Petitioner relied upon averments made in paragraphs 18 to 28 of the petition to submit that they had brought this error due to technical glitch to the notice of the Respondents. The Petitioner submits that since non-payment cannot be attributed to them on account of technical glitch on the portal of the Respondents, the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the SVLDR scheme more so looking at the objective for which the said scheme was introduced, that is, to reduce the litigation. The Petitioner further submitted that on similar facts the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Sai Ram Mech & Tech India P Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2024 (4) TMI 236 and Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2023 (74) G.S.T.L. 226 (Bom.) has granted relief to the applicants. The Petitioner, therefore, prayed that the Respondents be directed to accept payment of Rs.25,68,362.50/- to be made by the Petitioner as per SVLDRS-3 and to issue the SVLDRS-4 certificate.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the Respondents submitted that since the payment has not been made within prescribed time the Petitioner c