Rinkesh Kumar Jain vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the petitioner neither deposited the amount within the initial 30 days from the issuance of Form No. 3 (January 21, 2020), which expired on February 21, 2020, nor made any effort to make the payment by the extended deadline of June 30, 2020. The Court noted that the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown were not prevalent when the initial 30-day period expired. The petitioner's deposit was made on November 16, 2021, almost a year later. The Court referred to the reasoning in Writ Petition No. 17252/2021 (M/S MAYA FAN AIR ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Versus Union of India), which emphasized the lack of bona fides and the failure to pursue the matter after the scheme lapsed. The Court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner's conduct showed a lack of diligence in complying with the scheme's requirements.

Facts

The petitioner, Rinkesh Kumar Jain, a government civil contractor, was assessed with a tax liability of Rs. 20,45,132/- and penalty of Rs. 22,04,932/- along with interest by Respondent No. 4 via an order dated December 16, 2019. He applied for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and was issued Form No. 3 on January 21, 2020, directing payment of Rs. 8,18,052/- as full and final settlement. The scheme required payment within 30 days of Form No. 3 issuance. The petitioner claims he could not pay within the stipulated period due to the nationwide lockdown. Subsequently, Respondent No. 5 issued demand notices on November 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, for the original tax and penalty amounts. The petitioner attempted to pay Rs. 8,18,052/-, but was allegedly not permitted, leading to the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite failing to deposit the settlement amount within the prescribed 30 days from the issuance of Form No. 3 on January 21, 2020, considering the subsequent Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, which extended the deadline to June 30, 2020. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the period of limitation for payment under Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019, was extended to June 30, 2020, by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, to provide relief during the Covid-19 pandemic. They also cited the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation in all matters. The petitioner claimed to have deposited Rs. 8,18,052/- but did not receive a discharge certificate and was still being pressed for the outstanding demand. Respondents' arguments: The respondents relied on High Court of Madras and this Court's previous judgments (Writ Tax No. 541/2021 and Writ Petition No. 17252/2021) where similar petitions were dismissed. They argued that in those cases, the petitioners failed to deposit the amounts within the stipulated period, even with the extended deadline, and that the petitioner in the present case neither deposited within 30 days nor made efforts to pay by June 30, 2020, depositing the amount much later in November 2021.