Gauranga Bhattacharjee vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 Ors

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's payment under the SVLDRS was arbitrary. While the payment was technically Rs. 0.40 paisa more than the assessed amount, it was made on or before the last date (June 30, 2020), and the petitioner had not paid less than the required amount. The department could have either accepted the excess payment or returned the marginal excess of 40 paisa instead of rejecting the entire amount. The Court found that the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's offer to pay the exact amount was also unacceptable, construing it as an act of repayment of the already rejected payment. The Court directed that the petitioner should pay the required amount within two weeks, and the department should accept it as payment made on or before June 30, 2020. If payment could not be made online due to the closure of the SVLDRS portal, the petitioner could tender the amount via a Challan from a Nationalized Bank.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B G Engineering Co., sought to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) for service tax dues for the period 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. The scheme was valid until June 30, 2020. The petitioner remitted Rs. 1,25,629.60 on June 30, 2020, towards service tax. The assessed amount was Rs. 1,25,629.20. Due to the excess payment of Rs. 0.40, the payment was rejected, and the petitioner was denied the benefit of the SVLDRS. A speaking order dated 01/2021/SVLDRS rejected the petitioner's request to pay the exact amount later, citing the non-extension of the payment deadline by the Board.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's payment under the SVLDRS, made on June 30, 2020, for an amount of Rs. 1,25,629.60, which was Rs. 0.40 paisa more than the assessed amount of Rs. 1,25,629.20, was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner had paid on or before the last date and not less than the assessed amount? The petitioner argued that the payment was made on time and the discrepancy was minor, and the department could have accepted the excess or returned it. The revenue contended that the payment was technically incorrect and the deadline for payment had passed for making corrections. 2. Whether the subsequent offer by the petitioner to pay the exact amount and its rejection by the department was justified, given the circumstances of the initial rejection? The petitioner argued that this was an act of repayment of an already rejected payment. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point.