JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential apartments. The petitioner was an assessee under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. For the period from 01-10-2008 to 30-06-2010, the petitioner was assessed to pay service tax of Rs.1,41,97,591/- and a penalty of Rs.1,41,97,591/- together with interest payable thereon. Ext.P1 is the order dated 24-03-2017 adjudicating the aforesaid liability on the petitioner. A Dispute Resolution Scheme known as ‘Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019’, was introduced by the Central Government for settling disputes with assessees like the petitioner. The petitioner sought to avail the benefit of the scheme for settling the dispute leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was accordingly issued with a statement under the scheme (Form No.SVLDRS-3) permitting the petitioner to settle the liability by paying a sum of Rs.85,18,554.60/-. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P3 required the petitioner to pay the amount by 30-06-2020 (in terms of the provisions contained in Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019), the petitioner was able to pay the amount only on 03-07-2020. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to pay the amount on or before 30-06-2020 only on account of the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)No.3 of 2020, the payment made by the petitioner should be deemed to be within time for the purposes of the scheme.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the scheme is a Dispute Resolution Scheme and the terms of the Dispute Resolution Scheme have to be strictly complied with in order to enable assessees like the petitioner to obtain benefits under the scheme. It is submitted that there is no provision under the scheme for extending the time for payment, and since admittedly the petitioner has not paid the amounts within the time specified under the scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the scheme, and the entire amount adjudicated under Ext.P1 is liable to be paid by the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The fact that the petitioner was entitled to settle the disputes leading to Ext.P1 order by opting for settlement under the scheme is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had filed an application for settling the dispute under the provisions of the scheme and had also been issued a declaration permitting the petitioner to settle the dispute by paying a sum of Rs.85,18,554.60/-. It is true that, going by the provisions of Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2020, the amount had to be paid on or before 30-06-2024. It cannot be disputed that towards the end of Mach 2020, the entire country was placed under lockdown on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, and considering the disruptions caused on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court had taken cognisance of the difficulties placed by various persons, and while disposing of Suo Motu Writ Peititon (C)No.3 of 2020 by order dated 08-03-2021, the Supreme Court had issued the following directions:

1. “In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.

Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from