Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Ambika Pillai Designer Salon - Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7169 of 2022
Decided On : 11-05-2022
The court held that extensions for payment deadlines under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme are typically within the prerogative of the relevant authorities, but health-related circumstances may warrant leniency.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Petition challenging recovery notices - The petitioner invoked the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, seeking extension of payment timeframe due to financial hardship and personal health issues - Substantive prayers included setting aside the recovery notices and permission to pay the assessed amount. (Paras 4, 4.1, 5)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized the prerogative of the concerned authority to extend deadlines under the Scheme, tailored by specific circumstances of each case, notably medical conditions. (Paras 5, 5.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced recovery notices post-deadline for payment under the Scheme, citing financial difficulties and health concerns. The petitioner argued for a lenient view based on medical grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the concerned authority to treat the petition as a representation and consider extending the time limit based on comparable cases.
Issues: The significant issues included whether the court could grant an extension for the Scheme's payment deadline due to the petitioner’s circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that typically, time extensions should be determined by the concerned revenue authority, but specific circumstances such as health can warrant reconsideration.
Result: Writ petition disposed of as outlined.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for relief from recovery notices (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. court's evaluation of extension of time under the scheme (Para 5) |
| 3. final order and timeline for addressing the petition (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical court hearing/hybrid hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 21964/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C.) 7169/2022
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr. Rajesh Gogna accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 while Mr Harpreet Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4.
3. In view of the directions that we intend to pass, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:
"a) Appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indian setting aside/quashing the Recovery notices dated 04.01.2022 issued by Respondent no.3 and 25.01.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 respectively;
b) Appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.1 to allow the Petitioner to make the payment of Rs.68,53,590 (Sixty-Eight Lacs Fifty-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) as determined by form no. SVLDRD-3 dated 06.03.2020 issued u/s 127 of the Finance (NO. 2) Act, 2019 read with Rule 6 of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme-2019"
4.1. Mr. Ajay Mankotia, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says the petitioner could not deposit within the prescribed timeframe the "amount declared" under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [in short "the Scheme"], as it did not have the requisite financial wherewithal.
4.2. It is also Mr Mankotia's contention that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and, therefore, a lenient view of the aforesaid infraction should be taken.
4.3. In support of his submission, Mr Mankotia points out that the petitioner had entered into correspondence with respondent/revenue immediately, after the deadline for depositing the "amount declared" expired on 30.06.2020.
4.4. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the communications addressed by the petitioners to the respondents/revenue i.e., communications dated 16.07.2020, 09.11.2020, 20.03.2021, 07.12.2021, 13.01.2022 and 23.03.2022 [See Annexures P-7 to P-10, P-13 and P-16.]
5. According to us, ordinarily no direction can be issued by the Court for extending the timeframe provided under the Scheme as this would be the prerogative of the respondents having regard to the ground realities.
5.1. However, given the circumstances that have been put forth by Mr Mankotia on behalf of the petitioner, in particular, the fact that the petitioner claims that she is afflicted with cancer, the designated committee or any other appropriate authority [hereafter referred to as "concerned authority"] will treat the writ petition as a representation and dispose of the same.
5.2. In case any leeway has been given in any other case(s) for extension of the time limit provided in the Scheme, the concerned authority will examine, as to whether the petitioner's case is at par, and the same treatment can be accorded to her as well.
6. The aforesaid exercise will be concluded, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
