Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise on 4 November, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
WP. No.6488 of 2022
Between:-
M/S DINESH KUMAR YADAV
THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI
DINESH KUMAR YADAV AGED ABOUT
46 YEARS, FF1, BALAJI HEIGHT,
DEENDAYAL CHOWK, DAMOH NAKA,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJMANI MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, GST BHAWAN, MISSION CHOWK,
NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DESIGNATED COMMITTEE SVLDRS
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GST
BHAWAN MISSION CHOWK NAPIER
TOWN, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT CGST RANGE II,
JABALPUR I, 4TH FLOOR, KATARIYA
PLAZA, OPP. AASTHA NAGAR,
GWARIGHAT ROAD, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
- 2 -
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI GAJENDRA SINGH
THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 05.08.2022
Passed on : 04.11.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Sheel Nagu, J.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of order dated 08.02.2022 vide Annexure P/1 seeking recovery of service tax to the tune of Rs.3,91,594/- owing to petitioner having failed to pay the discounted amount of service tax by the last date i.e. 30.06.2020 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for brevity "SVLDR Scheme of 2019").
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal.
3. Bare facts giving rise to present petition, as projected by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that petitioner for being eligible applied under SVLDR Scheme of 2019 vide Annexure P/2. After due verification of his claim under the said scheme petitioner was asked to deposit the rebated service tax to the tune of Rs.66,318.80/- latest by 30.06.2020 vide Annexure P/3.
- 3 -
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to server/technical problem and ongoing pandemic, petitioner could not make the payment despite having attempted to do so on 23.01.2020 and 29.06.2020. However, it is submitted by petitioner that payment was made on 01.07.2020 vide Annexure P/5.
3.2 The grievance of petitioner is that despite having paid rebated service tax, impugned recovery order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) has been passed.
3.3 The petitioner has relied upon decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Indore on 05.10.2021 in WP. No.3130/2021 (Ms. Balaji Services vs. Union of India & Others) to contend that Scheme of 2019 is beneficial in nature, and therefore, needs to be liberally construed and in case of doubt, interpretation favouring the assessee ought to be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand filed return denying all the contentions of petitioner and submitted that despite having ample opportunities of depositing the rebated amount of service tax till 30.06.2020, needful was not done by the petitioner. The amount, however, was deposited on 02.07.2020, which was after the last date i.e. 30.06.2020, and therefore, discharge certificate in Form No.SVLDRS-4 was not issued thereby rendering the petitioner exigible to normal rate of service tax vide Annexure P/1. Learned counsel for the Revenue placing reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered on 16.06.2022 in WP. No.4805/2022 (M/S. Metrics Ptomotions & Events vs. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise & Another) urges that this Court has declined to
- 4 -
exceed to similar prayer in this case. It is submitted that in the case of M/s. Metrics Ptomotions (supra), this Bench relying upon the decision of Apex Court rendered on 18.02.2022 in SLA(C) No.2070/2022 held that relief under the Scheme cannot be extended, dehors the terms and conditions of Scheme and thus last date prescribed for depositing the rebated amount of service tax cannot be extended or else, it would amount to tinkering with the Scheme.
5. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petition and deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition for the reasons infra:-
(i) The decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Indore in the case of M/s. Balaji Services (supra) does not assist the petitioner since in the said scheme the question of extending the last date for submission of rebated amount of service tax was not raised or decided. The question before the Court was as to whether the rejection of application Form SVLDRS-1 can be made without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee despite the scheme providing for such an opportunity.
(ii) It is not disputed by the petitioner that all attempts made till 30.06.2020 to deposit the rebated amount of service tax had failed. The contention that the rebated amount was paid on the first/second July, 2020 is of no avail to the petitioner since it was after the last date statutorily mandated for deposit of rebated amount of service tax. More so, there is nothing on record to show that the last date was extended beyond 30.06.2020.
- 5 -
6. Looking to the law laid down by the Apex Court in SLA (C) No.2070/2022 and also the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Metrics Ptomotions (supra), this Court declines interference in the matter.
7. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed without cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mohsin
MOHAMMED MOHSIN
QURESHI
2022.11.04 10:23:52 +05'30'