Tvl. Jai Guru Cables vs. The Princial Chief Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jai Guru Cables, sought to settle tax arrears under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. An adverse order was passed against the petitioner on 26.12.2011, leading to a demand of Rs. 9,13,730/-. The petitioner filed a declaration under the scheme, and the designated authority issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 11.11.2019, quantifying the payable amount as Rs. 1,51,797.20/-. The petitioner attempted to pay this amount on 30.06.2020, the extended last date, but the payment was debited and then re-credited due to technical glitches. This is the third round of litigation concerning the petitioner's attempt to resolve the dispute under the scheme. The impugned order dated 03.02.2022 rejected the petitioner's claim.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was indeed entitled to avail the benefits of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Court found that the petitioner made genuine attempts to pay the amount on the last date, and the failure to credit the payment was due to technical glitches on the revenue's e-governance platform. The Court emphasized that the scheme's purpose is to allow chronic defaulters to pay and buy peace, and delays caused by technical issues should not prevent the petitioner from settling the dispute. The Court disagreed with the view taken in the Convenant Insurance Surveyors case. The Court directed the respondents to accept the payment from the petitioner within 30 days of receiving the order and bring closure to the dispute in the true spirit of the scheme. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite the payment not being successfully credited due to technical glitches on the last date of payment? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they made genuine and consistent efforts to pay the amount on the last date, and the failure to credit the payment was due to technical issues on the revenue's platform. They relied on the scheme's purpose of providing solace to chronic defaulters and cited decisions from the Rajasthan High Court (Agroha Electronics) and their own High Court (N.Sundararajan) to support their claim. The petitioner contended that the delay should not be held against them given the circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the Sabka Vishwas Scheme was time-bound, and since the petitioner failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, even with extensions, they were not entitled to settle the dispute. They referred to a High Court decision (Convenant Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited) where similar relief was denied.