Sikkandar. P vs. The Govt. Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, P. Sikkandar, filed a writ petition seeking an extension of time to pay the estimated amount determined by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The petitioner had applied under the SVLDRS, and the Designated Committee had asked for payment by 30.06.2020. The petitioner failed to comply with this deadline. The High Court initially allowed the writ petition on 08.01.2021, granting a seven-day extension. However, upon a suo motu recall of the order, it was brought to the Court's attention that Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019, and Rule 7 of the SVLDRS, 2019, mandated payment by the designated committee's deadline, which was 30.06.2020. These provisions were not considered in the initial order.

Held

The Court, in its subsequent order dated 30.03.2021, suo motu recalled its earlier order dated 08.01.2021, which had allowed the writ petition. The reason for recalling the order was that the Court had failed to consider Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019, and Rule 7 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. These provisions clearly stated that the payment under the scheme, as directed by the designated committee, had to be made by 30.06.2020. Since the petitioner had not complied with this mandatory deadline, the initial order granting an extension was found to be erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court found that the statutory provisions regarding the payment deadline were binding and could not be relaxed by the Court in the absence of specific enabling provisions or judicial precedents supporting such relaxation in this context.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court was correct in initially allowing the writ petition to extend the payment deadline under the SVLDRS, 2019, despite statutory provisions mandating payment by a specific date? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019, and Rule 7 of the SVLDRS, 2019, which stipulate the payment deadline, were correctly applied in the initial order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought an extension of time to pay the estimated amount determined by the Designated Committee under SVLDRS, 2019, citing difficulties and requesting parity with other states affected by COVID-19. The petitioner prayed for the application of Sections 6 & 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, concerning the SVLDRS, 2019. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through the Junior Panel Standing Counsel, brought to the Court's notice that Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019, and Rule 7 of the SVLDRS, 2019, prescribed a mandatory payment deadline of 30.06.2020, which was not taken into account in the initial order.