Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Abirami Engineering Construction & Co., Namakkal – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem GST Commissionerate, Salem & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 7249 of 2021
Decided On : 10-08-2023
SVLDRS - Tax Dispute Settlement - Finance Act, 2019 - SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - [Finance Act, 2019, SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019] - The court discussed the SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 and its provisions, including the acceptance of payment, technical glitches, and the jurisdiction to accept declarations and payments under the scheme. The court referred to specific sections and interpretations from the Finance Act, 2019 and relevant case laws to reach its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to settle a tax dispute under the SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 but faced issues with the payment process, leading to a writ petition to quash the communication rejecting the request to resend the amount back to the beneficiary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, citing technical glitches and the legitimate benefit of the scheme. It directed the respondents to accept the payment and imposed interest on the remaining amount if not paid within the stipulated time.
Issues: Issues included the rejection of the request to resend the amount, the expiration of the scheme, and the acceptance of payment under the SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that technical glitches should not deny the legitimate benefit of the SVLDRS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 and directed the respondents to accept the payment. Interest was imposed on the remaining amount if not paid within the stipulated time.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, with directions to pay the remaining amount and interest within a specified time period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with C.No.IV/16/10/2019 GST Cell daed 29.12.2020 isued by the 2nd respondent with the approval of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as having been passed contrary to law and against Justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to accept the payment of the tax dues of Rs.2,83,14,330/- from the petitioner equal to the amount which was earlier made by them through RTGS mode vide cheque No.886305 dated 30.06.2020 and credited back to their current account, towards settlement of the dispute covered by show cause notice No.05/2018 ST/JC-SLM dated 06.06.2018 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019.)
1. The petitioner had opted to settle dispute under the SVLDRS ( Legacy Dispute Regulation) Scheme Rules, 2019 which announced and Finance Act, (No.2) 2019 with effect from 01.09.2019. The petitioner filed a declaration Form SVLDRS-1 on 29.12.2019. The Designated Authority issued SVLDRS-3 on 27.02.2020.
2. As per the aforesaid order in SVLDRS-3 dated 27.02.2020 was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,83,14,271/-. The petitioner appears to have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,83,14,330/- for making payment through RTGS facility through the 3rd Respondent bank on 30.06.2020 . The amount was debited and thereafter was immediately re-credited to the petitioner''s account. The petitioner was informed about the same by the Indian Bank vide its letter dated 02.07.2020.
3. In the aforesaid letter, it is stated that the request for transfer through RTGS was received from the petitioner on 30.06.2020 together with cheque No.886305 for a sum of Rs.2,83,14,330/- and that the aforesaid amount was transferred through RTGS on 30.06.2020 itself for a sum of Rs.83,14,271/-. In all accumulating a sum of Rs.2,83,14,330/-. It is further stated that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,83,14,271/- amount was transferred through RTGS on 30.06.2020. In the said communication, the petitioner has been further informed that the aforesaid amount was re-credited from the petitioner''s account on account on 01.07.2020 on account of mis-match in chalan amount. Relevant portion of the aforesaid communication read as under:-
On 30.06.2020, we got RTGS request from you via cheque No.886305 to RBI of Rs.2,83,14,330/- . We have transferred the RTGS amount on 30.06.2020 itself for Rs.83,14,271, 1,00,00,000 and Rs.1,00,00,000/- accumulating a total of Rs.2,83,14,330/- . The amount is returned to your account on 01.07.2020 Mismatch in Challan amount is the reason for return of amount. As per our bank policy we are not able to Transfer more than one Crore in a single RTGS. The same we have informed the customer also.
4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has sent several reminders to resend amount back to the beneficiary under the Scheme vide letter dated 03.07.2020, 24.07.2020, 03.09.2020 and 22.12.2020
5. By impugned communication dated 29.12.2020, the second respondent has informed the petitioner that there is no option to resend amount back to the beneficiary. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition for quashing the impugned communication dated 29.12.2020 issued by the first respondent informing the petitioner that since due date for payment of tax under the scheme expired on 30.06.2020 and therefore rejecting the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
i) Shekhar Resorts Ltd., vs. Union of India, 2023(68) G.S.T.L 225/2 Centax 99 (S.C)
ii) M/s.L.G.Chaudhary vs. Union of India, R/Spl.L.A.No.12366 of 2021 dated 14.10.2022
iii) Subramaniya Siva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., vs. Union of India, 2022(67) G.S.T.L 424 (Mad.)
iv) Jai Guru Cables vs. Pr.Chief Commissioner of GST & C.Ex.Chennai,
Technical glitches should not hinder the legitimate benefit of a dispute resolution scheme, and the authorities should accept payments under the scheme in the spirit of justice and fair play.
Point of Law : Subsequent offer of the petitioner to tender the exact amount and rejection of the same by the department on the ground that the payment was made on the last date of payment also canno....
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....
The court held that technicalities should not impede the purpose of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, highlighting that prior payments should be duly credited.
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.
Beneficial tax amnesty schemes should not be denied to assessees due to minor technical delays in payment where the assessee has demonstrated earnest and timely efforts to comply with the statutory r....
The court established that pre-deposits should be deducted only after calculating the relief under the SVLDRS, ensuring accurate determination of tax dues.
A taxpayer should not be deprived of the benefits of an amnesty settlement scheme due to technical delays in bank processing when the taxpayer has exercised due diligence and taken all requisite step....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
