M/S. Balaji Electrical Engineering vs. Designated Committee

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Electrical Engineering, sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Excise and to direct the Designated Committee of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) to issue discharge certificates. The petitioner, a work contractor, had tax liabilities for periods between 2015-2016 and June 2017. They filed an application under the SVLDRS, 2019 on 31.12.2019. The Designated Committee issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 13.01.2020, requiring payment within 30 days, which expired on 12.02.2020. The petitioner's attempt to pay on 16.03.2020 was unsuccessful, with amounts being re-credited. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the impugned order confirming a demand of Rs. 28,88,010/-. The petitioner later made a payment on 29.12.2021.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's declaration in SVLDRS-1 was filed in time. However, the petitioner failed to pay the amount specified in Form SVLDRS-3 within the stipulated 30 days, making a belated attempt to pay on 16.03.2020, long after the expiry of the period. The Court found that the petitioner had not made a sincere declaration, nor had they paid the amount in time, thus disentitling them from the scheme's benefit. The Court also noted that the petitioner was debarred from filing the declaration under Section 125(1)(e) of the scheme. The payment made on 29.12.2021 was only of the amount specified in SVLDRS-3. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, granting liberty to file a statutory appeal within thirty days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner made a declaration in SVLDRS-1 in time under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019? 2. Whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of the scheme for not having paid the amount mentioned in SVLDRS-3 within the stipulated 30 days? 3. Whether the petitioner made a correct declaration of the tax payable and was therefore entitled to settle the dispute under the scheme? The petitioner argued that they filed the declaration in time and that the delay in payment was due to technical glitches and the COVID-19 pandemic, citing extensions granted by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Supreme Court orders. They contended that their calculation of tax on the abated value was correct. The respondents argued that the petitioner was required to pay 100% tax under Section 124-1(e) as it was a voluntary disclosure, and their declared tax amount was incorrect. They also argued that the extension notification was not applicable to the petitioner as their due date had already expired before the extension period.