Mr. Anil Tiwari vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the SVLDRS Scheme. The Court found no reason to deviate from the view taken by the Apex Court in M/s Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India and others and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Metrics Promotions and Events 993 vs. Commissioner CGST and another. The reasoning was that the SVLDRS Scheme, being statutory, must be applied strictly as per its provisions. The absence of any enabling provision for condoning delay in depositing the determined amount meant that the last date for deposit, 30.06.2020, could not be extended. The Court noted that there was no challenge to the constitutionality of the Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of SVLDRS Form-4 and the consequent benefit of rebate was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anil Tiwari, a registered service tax assessee, was issued a show cause notice on 05.10.2015, leading to a confirmed demand of Rs. 40,86,475/- for service tax dues for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner applied under the Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The Designated Committee determined the reduced tax dues as Rs. 15,11,990/-. The petitioner claims that due to a technical glitch, this amount was credited to the Revenue on 01.07.2020, one day after the last date for deposit (30.06.2020), resulting in the non-issuance of a discharge certificate. Consequently, the petitioner is now shown in arrears and seeks the benefit of the rebate under the SVLDRS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), despite failing to deposit the determined tax dues by the stipulated last date of 30.06.2020, due to alleged technical glitches? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of the SVLDRS Scheme and principles of condonation of delay). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to deposit the determined amount by the deadline was not attributable to them but to a technical glitch, and therefore, they should not be deprived of the SVLDRS benefits. They prayed for the issuance of SVLDRS Form-4. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the SVLDRS Scheme is statutory in nature and must be strictly adhered to. They contended that there is no enabling provision within the Scheme to condone delays in depositing the determined amount, and therefore, the last date for deposit cannot be extended. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Yashi Constructions vs. Union of India and others and a Coordinate Bench decision in M/s Metrics Promotions and Events 993 vs. Commissioner CGST and another.