COACH INDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner thereafter visited the office of the 1st respondent and pointed out the said issue to the authorities concerned. The authorities informed the petitioner that due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the time for making payment was likely to be extended. However, nothing was heard, and in the meantime, the 2nd respondent issued notice for personal hearing in show cause notice on 01.03.2021.

Petitioner once again approached the 1st respondent on

16.03.2021 and pointed out the facts and particulars regarding their inability to make payment within the time provided due to technical glitches and also brought to their attention the order of the Supreme Court extending – suo motu- time limit in the light of Covid Pandemic. Adjudication of the show cause WP(C) NO. 20999 OF 2022 6 notice proceeded with by the 2nd respondent who finalised the order on 30.11.2021. As per the adjudication order, the petitioner is liable to make the payment of Rs. 13,44,668/- by way of service tax along with penalty under Section 78 and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents after they filed SVLDRS-1 on 14.01.2020 and they could notice the SVLDRS-3 dated 19.02.2020 only on the website of the CBIC. Thereafter, they tried to make payment of the amount mentioned in the SVLDRS, however, they could not make the payment for the reason of ‘technical glitches’ in the site. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for ‘technical glitches’ in the site of the CBIC, which was the reason for the petitioner not able to make the meager payment of Rs.13,895/-. The petitioner was always willing to make the payment under the scheme. Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to make payment of the amount of Rs.13,895/- with interest and penalty as this court may deem it fit and proper. The adjudication order and the WP(C) NO. 20999 OF 2022 7 penalty are wholly unwarranted and the same should be set aside.

Mr. Sreelal Warrier, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that under the scheme everything was online, ie., uploading of SVLDRS-1, SVLDRS-3 and payment. The scheme is complete code. SVLDRS-3 was to be issued by the designated committee within 60 days from the date of receipt of declaration in SVLDRS-1, and after uploading of SVLDRS-3 within 60 days from the receipt of the SVLDRS-1, the payment as per SVLDRS-3 was to be made by the declarant within 30 days from the date of issue of the SVLDRS-3. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no physical notice was served or issued does not warrant any serious consideration as no physical notice of uploading of SVLDRS-3 was contemplated in the scheme.

The petitioner’s 30 days got expired on 18.03.2020. However, the date for making the payment was extended up to

31.03.2020, and thereafter up to 30.06.2020 as per the Supreme Court order. But the petitioner did not make the WP(C) NO. 20999 OF 2022 8 payment. There is no proof of ‘technical glitches’ which prevented the petitioner from making the payment of Rs. 13,895/-. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the show cause notice was issued and adjudication has taken place. The petitioner instead of filing the appeal has approached this court invoking the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not maintainable against the order of adjudication. The petitioner may file the appeal, if he is aggrieved by the order of adjudication.

The learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the order in the case of Yashi Constructions v. Union of India and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 723], in support of the submission that, if the declarant failed to deposit the amount as per SVLDRS-3 within 30 days time period prescribed in the scheme, no relief should be granted to such declarant and the limitation period to make deposit under the scheme should not be extended.

I have considered the submissions advanced. The “SUBKA VISHWAS” [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules, 2019, is self contained code. The SVLDRS-1 WP(C) NO. 20999 OF 2022 9 was to be uploaded online and SVLDRS-3 was also to be uploaded online within 60 days from the date of receipt of the SVLDRS-1. A declarant was required to make payment online within 30 days from the date of uploading of SVLDRS-3.

Petitioner knew the provision as he had chosen to take benefit of the scheme by uploading SVLDRS-1. He knew that within 60 days from the date of uploading of SVLDRS-1, SVLDRS-3 would be uploaded and he would be required to make the payment within 30 days from the said date. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner’s contention that he could notice the SVLDRS-3 only on the website of the CBIC on or around 15.6.2020, and thereafter, he tried to make the payment but he failed for ‘technical glitches’ is not convincing. The petitioner’s allegation that there were ‘technical glitches’ is not supported by any cogent and credible evidence. The petitioner ought to have made the payment within 30 days from 19.02.2020 or till the extended time, which he failed to do so.

Once the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme, which is a complete code in itself, WP(C) NO. 20999 OF 2022 10 this court would not like to extend the limitation for making the payment under the scheme in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.