Tvl. Jeya Sorna Agro Tech vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Jeya Sorna Agro Tech, sought to settle a service tax dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. A show cause notice dated April 23, 2019, proposed a demand of Rs. 7,07,052/- for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16. The petitioner received Form SVLDRS-3 on February 25, 2020, requiring payment within 30 days. Due to the nationwide lockdown in March 2020 and subsequent intermittent lockdowns, the petitioner failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period. An attempt to pay via NEFT on June 30, 2020, failed, and an RTGS transaction on the same day resulted in the amount being debited and then re-credited. Consequently, the benefit of the scheme was denied, and an Order-in-Original dated January 6, 2022, confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,26,484/-.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made a genuine attempt to pay the estimated amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, on June 30, 2020, through NEFT and RTGS, but faced technical glitches, likely due to system issues exacerbated by the lockdown. The Court found that the substantial benefit of the amnesty scheme should not be denied. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the estimated amount as per Form SVLDRS-3 dated February 25, 2020, within 30 days from the receipt of the Court's order, along with interest at 9% from June 30, 2020. Upon compliance, the impugned Order-in-Original would stand quashed, and the respondents were directed to issue Form SVLDRS-4 to bring closure to the dispute. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated time, the writ petition would be treated as dismissed. The issue of alternate remedy was implicitly set aside by granting relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite failing to deposit the estimated amount within the prescribed 30-day period, considering the circumstances of the nationwide lockdown and attempted payment. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are entitled to similar relief as granted in W.P.(MD) No. 4260 of 2022 (M/S. Jai Guru Cables vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai and others), emphasizing their attempt to pay the dues despite the lockdown. Respondents' argument: The respondents argued that the last date for payment expired on March 25, 2020, and the petitioner did not pay within the extended period or thereafter. They also raised the issue of an alternate remedy available to the petitioner before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.