M/S. Wadhwa Buildcon LLP Thr. Partners I. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, Ii. Ashish Suresh Wadhwa vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's prayer to condone the delay and extend the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, could not be considered. The Court found that the reasons provided by the Petitioner for the delay were general in nature and did not constitute an exceptional case warranting indulgence. The Court emphasized that the time limit for depositing the amount under the SVLDRS Scheme is mandatory, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Yashi Constructions v/s. Union of India. The Petitioner's contention that the Respondents were estopped from objecting because the amount was later accepted was rejected, as the deposit was made 13 days after the deadline. Regarding the return of the deposited amount, the Court directed the Petitioner to take necessary steps as per law. The Writ Petition was rejected.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Wadhwa Buildcon LLP, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Respondents, including the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, to condone a delay of 13 days in paying the final amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The Petitioner admitted to depositing the amount after the stipulated deadline of June 30, 2020. The reasons provided for the delay included liquidity issues, insolvency proceedings initiated by Bank of India, and a halt in construction work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner argued that the amount was eventually accepted, and therefore the Respondents should not object. The Court noted that this was a case of simple delay and failure to pay within the time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction to condone the delay of 13 days in depositing the final amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite the expiry of the stipulated deadline of June 30, 2020? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the delay was caused by genuine financial difficulties, including liquidity issues, insolvency proceedings, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their construction business. They further argued that since the amount was later accepted by the Respondents, the Respondents are estopped from raising an objection to the delay. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents did not file a formal reply, but the Court's reasoning implies they relied on the mandatory nature of the time limit prescribed by the SVLDRS Scheme. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Yashi Constructions v/s. Union of India, which held that the time limit under the SVLDRS Scheme is mandatory.