M/S Bhagwati Agency, Sundargarh vs. Asst. Commnr., GST And Central Excise, Rourkela
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner had outstanding service tax dues which were reduced under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, with a payment deadline of 31.03.2020. The petitioner failed to make the payment due to financial difficulties and the pandemic, leading to an attachment of property under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner proposed to pay the outstanding amount if the attachment was temporarily lifted.
Held
The Court ordered the temporary lifting of the attachment, allowing the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount within 7 days. The petitioner was also granted liberty to make a formal prayer to the competent authority for extension of time to avail the tax benefit under the scheme.
Key Issues
Whether the attachment of property for non-payment of dues under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme should be lifted temporarily to allow for payment and consideration of extension of time.
Sections Cited
Section 79(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
2023
Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
Heard Mr. Sidhhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. A. Kedia, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central GST, Central Excise and Custom.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this court to quash the attachment as imposed in pursuance to Section 79(1) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2
It has been admitted by the petitioner that he had outstanding on account of the Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 24,99,377/-. But in terms of the scheme called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, his proposal for tax relief was approved by the authority. Tax reliefs to the extent of Rs.14,99,624.40/- was accorded in favour of the petitioner, reducing the outstanding to Rs.9,99,749.60/-. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was supposed to make such payment by 31.03.2020 for deriving the tax reliefs. But the petitioner did not deposit the said amount.
Mr. Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during that time the petitioner was facing serious financial difficulties and immediately thereafter his business faced disastrous consequence of the pandemic. For those reasons, he could not arrange the fund to deposit the said amount as determined.
For the said default, the said attachment was imposed. Mr. Ray, learned counsel has made a proposal in the course of his submission that the petitioner would by a single stroke pay Rs.9,99,749.60/- if the attachment is lifted for a short term and he would make a formal prayer for consideration of extension of time for enabling the petitioner derive the tax benefit, as stated.
Mr. Kedia, leaned Standing Counsel has seriously opposed such proposal. According to him, the pandemic cannot be treated as the ground of the non-deposit. The last date of making such deposit under the said scheme was 31.01.2020 and that time, there had been no surge of pandemic.
3
Having appreciated the facts and the submission as advanced we think that in the interest of the revenue, the revenue shall lift the attachment temporarily in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has undertaken to deposit the sum of Rs.9,99,749.60/- within a period of 7 days from today. We also give liberty to the petitioner to file the prayer, as suggested, to the competent authority for consideration for reaping the benefits under the said scheme. The authority shall also consider the petitioner’s prayer within a period of 30 days from the day of receiving such prayer. If no prayer is made, the order of attachment will be restituted without further reference to the court.
In the event the prayer or the representation is made, the competent authority shall liberally consider whether the time can be extended. If extended, the outstanding service tax of the petitioner would be determined in terms of the said scheme, or otherwise. However, the competent authority is at their liberty to take decision so far as the extension of time is concerned, without being influenced by our order.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho) Rati Ranjan Judge
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.