The proceedings under the Sabka Vishwas scheme are quasi-judicial, rendering them subject to limitation extensions granted by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. 

This writ Petition is submitted by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner towards the arrears of service tax payable by the petitioner.

2. Earlier, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, demanding service tax as per Ext.P1 show cause notice. Exhibit P2 is yet another show cause notice issued to the petitioner following Ext.P1. In the meantime, the Central Government introduced a scheme for settlement of the tax liabilities including service tax viz; Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as (‘SVLDRS’), as per the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner submitted a declaration as contemplated under section 125 of the Finance Act and based on the same, the respondent offered the petitioner to settle the liability by paying Rs.1,05,806/- as per section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019. The said payment ought to have been made by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a settlement accepting the declaration of the petitioner. The due date for the payment was extended by the Government up to 30.06.2020 by amending Rule 7 of SVLDRS. Later, the said period was extended up to 30.09.2020. However, the petitioner could remit the said amount on 16.11.2020 and the same was accepted by the Department. The proof of the remittance is Ext.P4.

3. Despite the above, on 10.06.2022, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice, demanding an amount of Rs.8,30,851/- by the 5^th respondent herein. As it was understood that the said amount pertains to the liability already settled by the petitioner by availing Amnesty scheme, the petitioner submitted an objection before the Tahsildar as evidenced by Ext.P6. Another objection was submitted before the 2^nd respondent highlighting the above fact. However, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order, rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner. This Writ Petition is submitted in such circumstances, challenging the said proceedings.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 2 to 4 in which, it is averred that, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Amnesty scheme, based on the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019, as the petitioner failed to make the payment, within the stipulated period contemplated as per the scheme. It was also pointed out that, on several occasions, notices were issued to the petitioner demanding the said amount, but there was no response at all. It was further contended that, as far as the benefit under the scheme is concerned, it can be availed by strictly complying with the conditions therein and since the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditions, the same is not available to the petitioner. Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition was sought.

5. A reply affidavit was submitted by the petitioner, wherein, it is contended that, the petitioner is entitled to get the time enlarged in the light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, extending the period of limitation owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner had affected the payment within the extended time of limitation ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sou Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. Thus, according to the petitioner, the payment made by him has to be treated as in