M/S Zenith Leisure Holidays Limited And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Zenith Leisure Holidays Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondent CGST authority in accepting tax payment made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS-4, 2019). The petitioner claims to have made the payment before the deadline of midnight on June 30, 2020, but the bank credited it to the government account on July 1, 2020, through no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the subsequent attachment of its bank account due to the non-acceptance of this payment. The petitioner relies on decisions from the Calcutta High Court in Millenium Construction & Ors. Vs. Designated Committee and the Gujarat High Court in L.G. Chaudhary – Vs. – Union of India.

Held

The Court held that the respondent CGST authority, including the Board, should pass necessary orders to accept the payment made by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Court reasoned that the payment was initiated before the deadline, and the delay in credit was not attributable to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authority to issue a discharge certificate within four weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the debit freeze on the petitioner's bank account shall have no force, and the petitioner will be free to operate the account. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent CGST authority is obligated to accept the tax payment made by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even though the bank credited it to the government account on July 1, 2020, after the stipulated deadline of June 30, 2020, when the payment was initiated before the deadline. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the payment was made before the deadline and the delay in credit was due to the bank, not the petitioner. They rely on the principle that if an action is taken in time, subsequent delays not attributable to the assessee should not prejudice them. They cite Millenium Construction & Ors. Vs. Designated Committee and L.G. Chaudhary – Vs. – Union of India to support their claim that the authorities should accept the payment and issue a discharge certificate. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent CGST authority.