Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Eltel Engineers (A Partnership ... vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Virender Singh
1 WP-1562-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
WRIT PETITION No. 1562 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
M/S ELTEL ENGINEERS (A
PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
HAVING ITS OFFICE 101
LALBAHADUR COMPLEX
NEW BUS STAND
DISTT.SATNA THROUGH
PARTNER SHRI VINOD
KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O LATE
RAM MILAN AGRAWAL AGE
60 HIG 111 BHARHUT NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS CENTRAL GOODS AND
SERVICE TAX CIVIL LINE
CHOWK, DISTRICT-SATNA(MP)
2 WP-1562-2022
(MADHYA PRADESH) MILLS
HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE
TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE
DIVISION SATNA CR BUILDING ,
CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT-SATNA(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DESIGNATED COMMITEE SABKA
VISHWAS(LEGACY DISPUTE
RESOLUTION) SCHEME 2019 ,
CUSTOMS CENTRAL GOODS AND
SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT CR
BUILDING , CIVIL LINE,
DISTRICT-SATNA(MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3 & 4 BY SHRI GAJENDRA SINGH
THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 03.01.2023
Pronounced on : 20.02.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for
orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Sheel Nagu pronounced the following:
3 WP-1562-2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed by an assessee for seeking direction to deposit the discounted amount of tax to the tune of Rs.17,29,494/- under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 (for short, the SVLDRS-3) as per the quantification made by the Designated Committee under the said scheme.
1.1 It is the contention of petitioner that due to reasons beyond his control [Covid-19 pendemic], the petitioner could not avail the benefit under said scheme by depositing the said amount before the last date.
2. This Court need not to go into the prolixity of detailed adjudication since the issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of decisions of this Court in Ms. Matrics Promotion & Events Vs. Commissioner & Ors. (W.P.No.4805/2022) and M/s Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner & Ors. (W.P.No.6488/2022). Both these decisions of this Court are based upon the Apex Court decision in Ms. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.L.P No.2070/2022) where the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by an assessee against the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held thus:
4 WP-1562-2022 "It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme i.e. within 30 days.
In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
3. The SVLDRS scheme is a complete code in itself. It is trite law that in tax jurisprudence, any provision relating to concession/discount/rebate are to be construed strictly and any doubt arising therefrom has to be decided in favour of the Revenue.
3.1 In Novopan India Ltd. Vs. CCE and Customs 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606, the Apex Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State.
5 WP-1562-2022 3.2 The same view was followed in B.P.L. Ltd. Vs. CCE (2015) 13 SCC 220 wherein the Apex Court held thus:
"21. We approve that the aforesaid reasoning and rationale given by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the goods of the appellant would not qualify the description contained in Notifications Nos.8/96 and 4/97. It is trite that strict interpretation is to be given to the exemption notification and it is upon the assessee to prove that he fulfills all the conditions of eligibility under such notifications....."
4. In view of above discussion, the extension of time is sought by the petitioner to deposit the discounted tax under the Scheme cannot be granted since it would violate the very essence and ethos of the Scheme.
5. In view of above, the decision in the case of Ms. Matrics Promotions & Events (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis for the disposal of this petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
P/
Digitally signed by
MRS PREETI TIWARI
Date: 2023.02.21
11:04:11 +05'30'