Point of Law: As per provisions of Section 127 (5) of Finance Act, 2019, Company was required to pay outstanding tax dues electronically, within thirty days from date of issuance of SVLDRS-3.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-M/s. Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following substantive reliefs:

“a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to open the portal or take the amount by any other means and settle the petitioner dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

b) Issue direction to the respondents not to dismiss the application under the scheme of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for nonpayment of the challan deposit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- Company is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods. The petitioner was regularly filing its Central Excise Returns, but, due to the financial hardship, the petitioner-Company could not deposit the Central Excise Duty. There was no suppression on the value of the figures of manufacture and clearance in the Central Excise Returns filed by them. As on 1st July, 2017, the petitioner-Company was having the liability in the shape of Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 32,26,613/-.

3. In the year 2019, a scheme, namely Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, has been launched by the respondents, wherein, the pending cases could be settled by paying an amount equal to 50% of the tax amount. This Scheme was announced by the Finance Minister in the Union Budget for the year 2019-20. The budget proposal was enacted in Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 2019. The said Scheme was launched as “one time measure” for liquidation of past disputes of Central Excise, as well as, Service Tax.

4. The petitioner-Company has also highlighted the salient features of the Scheme and pleaded that the petitioner- Company had applied for settlement, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Consequently, SVLDRS-1 (Annexure P-2) was issued on 26th December, 2019. Thereafter, the Designated Committee has issued SVLDRS-2 (Annexure P-3) in favour of the petitioner- Company. In compliance of the SVLDRS-2, the petitioner- Company has submitted SVLDRS-2A (Annexure P-4) on 20th January, 2020, upon which, the Department has issued SVLDRS-3 (Annexure P-5) on 28th January, 2020, wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,90,646/-. After receiving SVLDRS-3 on 28th January, 2020, the petitioner tried to generate online challan, but, due to technical error, the portal was unable to generate the challan. When, the efforts were made to generate the challan, the following message was flashed on the website:

“There is something wrong while processing the request please contact our support team.”

5. Although, the said problem is stated to have been resolved on 28th February, 2020, but, when the petitioner- Company again tried to generate the challan, they received a message that period of 30 days for making the deposit had already expired. The petitioner-Company tried to contact the Support Team, but, due to network congestion, the same could not be contacted. In this regard, e-mail, dated 28th February, 2020 (Annexure P-6), was also forwarded to the Helpdesk. A letter was also written to Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Department, on 4th March, 2020, but, no response has been received by the petitioner-Company, in this regard. The matter has also been taken up with the Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Department, Shimla, on 16th March, 2020, but, no response was received by the petitioner-Company.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner-Company that on account of the restrictions imposed worldwide, during the lockdown period, in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner-Company has suffered losses and the entire business activities came to stand still.

7. According to the petitioner, the limitation period has been extended by the Hon’ble Supre