Point of Law: Scheme cannot be made operational by this Court going beyond the period for which it was formulated only for one person or to relax any of the conditions enumerated in the scheme.

ORDER :

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“A Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to accept the payment of taxes of Rs. 68,19,084/- declared by the Petitioner and accepted by the respondents under the Sabkas Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019;

B. Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to deposit the determined amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 along with such rate of interest as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court;

C. Directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 29.06.2020, 25.09.2020, 29.12.2020, 25.03.2021, 05.06.2021 and 12.08.2021 made by the Petitioner addressed to the Respondents.”

2. The Government of India launched a scheme called as “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short ‘SVLDRS, 2019’) as a one time measure for liquidation of legacy disputes of Central Excise and Service Tax.

3. The petitioner opted the scheme and filed a declaration dated 15.01.2020. In the declaration, the petitioner declared an amount of Rs.1,13,65,141/- under the category of ‘arrears-appeal not filed or appeal having attained finality’ in respect of order dated 15.01.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Shimla.

4. The Designated Committee after verification of the aforesaid declaration issued Form SVLDRS-3 to the petitioner on 13.03.2020 whereby the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.68,19,084.60/-. As per the SVLDRS-2019, the amount determined by the Designated Committee was required to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of the Form, as is evident from Rule-7 which reads as under:-

“Every declarant shall pay electronically the amount, as indicated in Form SVLDRS-3 issued by the designated committee, within a period of thirty days from the date of its issue.”

5. However, the petitioner failed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of issue of notice and further did not pay the same within the extended due date on 30.06.2020.

6. The petitioner thereafter made a number of representations to the Office of the Commissioner for extension of time and payment of dues in installments. However, the petitioner was repeatedly informed that being time bound amnesty scheme, there was no provision under the SVLDRS, 2019 for extension of time after 30.06.2020.

7. Moreover, the petitioner was contacted by the department to ascertain its willingness to pay the tax dues by 30.09.2020, if the date is further extended. The petitioner even after the receipt of the letter dated 14.07.2020 did not show any willingness for the same.

8. The Range Officer accordingly initiated action for recovery of arrears vide letter dated 03.06.2021 and the instant petition was filed after more than 1 year and 3 months from the last date of payment of determined amount of tax under the SVLDRS, 2019.

9. Now, the moot question, in these circumstances, is whether the SVLDRS, 2019 can be made operational by the Court beyond the period for which it was formulated?

10. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the various judgments rendered by various High Courts which are enumerated below:-

“1. Case No: WP(C) 2862/2021, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. versus The Union of India and others.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10571/2020, Agroha Electronics versus Union of India and another.

3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6962/2021, M/s Akshay Dan Charan, A proprietorship Firm, through its Proprietor vs. Union of India and others.

4. W.P. (MD) No. 19314 of 2020, P. Sikkandar vs. The Government of India and another, Madras High Court.

5. Writ Tax No.328 of 2021, M/s Shekhar Resorts Limited vs. Union of India and others.”

11. Adverting to the facts in Brahmaputra Tele’s case (supra), it would be noticed that the judgment