Apnaa Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court, in Apnaa Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, considered a batch of writ petitions involving delayed payment of amounts determined under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The principal issue was whether assessees who failed to remit the amounts specified in Form SVLDRS-3 by the prescribed deadline of 30 June 2020 could subsequently be permitted to complete the settlement. In the case of M/s Sivagurunathan Textiles Limited, the designated authority had issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 28 February 2020, determining the payable amount at ₹29,61,717. Although the petitioner could not make payment within the stipulated period, it communicated its readiness to remit the amount through a representation received by the authorities on 31 July 2020 and requested that the payment portal be enabled.
The Court relied upon the Division Bench decision in N. Sundararajan v. Union of India, dated 26 August 2021, which had interpreted the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, as extending the relevant time limit for payment under the SVLDR Scheme until 30 September 2020. The earlier judgment had adopted a liberal interpretation of Section 6 of the relaxation legislation, considering the statutory provisions governing completion and compliance of specified actions under indirect tax laws. The Court also recorded the Revenue’s submission that the Division Bench judgment had attained finality because the Department had not pursued an appeal, reportedly owing to the low tax effect. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to apply the same legal principle to the petitions before it.
Applying that decision, the High Court held that Sivagurunathan Textiles had expressed its willingness to make payment on 31 July 2020, well within the extended period ending on 30 September 2020. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to relief and was permitted to remit ₹29,61,717 together with interest at 15% from 1 July 2020 until the actual date of payment, within four weeks from receipt of the order. The authorities were directed to enable the payment portal forthwith to facilitate compliance. Accordingly, W\.P. No. 2942 of 2021 was disposed of, granting the petitioner an opportunity to complete the settlement under the Scheme.
Cases Discussed
N. Sundararajan v. Union of India — W.A. Nos.2047 to 2098 of 2021, decided on 26.08.2021 (as cited in the order).
FULL TEXT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are assessees under the Central Excise Act, in terms of which, demands had been raised for various periods.
2. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.2942 of 2021, an application was filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 for settlement of disputes under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. An application in Form SVLDRS-1 was made on 17.12.2019 and on 28.02.2020, SVLDRS-3 determining the amount payable at a sum of Rs.29,61,717/- came to be issued by the respondent.
3. The petitioner appears to have faced some difficulty in meeting the deadline under the Scheme, particularly, the deadline requiring full payment of the amount to be made on or before 30.06.2020. However, gathering its resources, it was in a position to remit the amount a month later on 30.07.2020 and has written to the officer expressing readiness to settle the amount and seeking clarity on whether the amount would be so accepted, if filed at that juncture.
4. Inter alia, the petitioner refers to a query in this regard having been raised before the jurisdictional officer at Chennai, who was also unable to provide a definite response in that regard. A request was addressed to the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise and in conclusion, they request that they be permitted to pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee, for which purpose, the portal would have had to be enabled by the authorities. This communication has been received by the respondents on 31.07.2020 and this is not in dispute.
5. In W.P.No.19919 of 2020, the position is different, insofar as, while Forms SVLDRS-1, 3 and 4 had been filed/issued on 19.12.2019, 16.03.2020 and 09.04.2020 respectively, the petitioner appears to have sat tight on the remittance till 17.10.2020, when it made a representation to the respondents seeking extension of time to remit the amount.
6. Though there is proof of despatch of this communication, there is no proof of receipt of the same. However, the receipt of this, if at all, becomes irrelevant in light of a decision of this Court in N.Sundararajan v. Union of India [W.A.Nos.2047 to 2098 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021]. Those writ appeals had been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.06.2021 who had dismissed writ petitions seeking extension of the period for remittance on par with the extension granted by the Income Tax Authorities.
7. To be noted that, Schemes for settlement of legacy arrears had been notified both under Direct and Indirect Tax statutes. However, there had been a variation between the final dates for receipt of payments under the two Schemes. While the Scheme in the context of Income Tax, permitted remittance till 30.09.2020, the Scheme under the Indirect Tax Laws permitted settlement only till 30.06.2020.
8. The Court was persuaded to observe at Para 5, extracted below, that the time limit should be on par for both Schemes. If this were so, it would enable an assessee who expresses readiness to make the payment prior to 30.09.2020, to avail the benefit of the Scheme under Indirect Taxes as well.
5. Thus, in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter-V of the Finance Act for completion of certain actions as stipulated under Chapter-V, stood extended till 30th September, 2020, and Section 6 of the Act deals with two situations, namely, period for completion and period of compliance. Therefore, the said provision has to be given a liberal interpretation and if we do so, the time limit for payment of taxes can be construed to be a time limit for completion of particular act, as stipulated under Chapter-V of the Finance Act. In fact, the said Act has also made certain amendments in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, in Chapter-IV. Thus, the intention of the legislation is to extend the time limit for compliance or completion of certain acts under the Statute, which have been listed therein, and the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has also been amended by extending the time limit. Since Chapter-V of the Act, which deals with relaxation of time limit under Indirect Tax Laws, which stipulates four Tax Laws, which includes Finance Act, 1994, we will be well justified in holding that the time limit for completion of the payment of taxes, as quantified in Form-3, also stood extended till 30.09.2020. If that is the date on which the appellants were required to complete the payment, then the appellant’s conduct in approaching this Court by filing the writ petitions on 29.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 can very well be reckoned to be a conduct, which will not be hit by delay and laches.
9. The Court directed that delay would require the payment of interest and has directed those appellants to remit interest @ 15% from 01.07.2020 till the date of remittance, which was fixed at three weeks from the date of order, i.e., on or before 17.09.2021.
10. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, appearing for the respondents, submits that the aforesaid order has attained finality. Though the Department had contemplated a challenge to the same, no appeal had materialised on account of low tax effect, he says. The Circular providing for pecuniary limit on filing of appeals, sets out certain exclusions, where, despite the monetary threshold, the Revenue could still pursue matters in some situations, including if the matters involved large scale revenue ramifications or dealt with issues of a recurring nature. The decision of the Revenue not to challenge order dated 26.08.2021, despite the exclusions set out in the Circular, to my mind, indicates a conscious view to accept the ratio of the aforesaid order, which I will then, and consequently, proceed to apply in the present writ petition as well.
11. In the facts and circumstances in W.P.No.2942 of 2021, since the petitioner has admittedly approached the respondents and expressed its readiness to remit the amount on 31.07.2020, it is entitled to extension of time and is permitted to make the remittance along with interest @ 15% from 01.07.2020 to date of remittance, that must be within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, for which purpose, the website shall be enabled forthwith. Accordingly, W.P.No.2942 of 2021 stands disposed as aforesaid.
12. However, since the petitioner in W.P.No.19919 of 2020 has taken necessary steps only in October, 2021 far beyond the extended time period and that too, only tentative, the benefit cannot be extended to this petitioner. The mandamus as sought for is thus rejected and W.P.No.19919 of 2020 is dismissed.
13. W.P.No.17428 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
14. No costs in any of the writ petitions. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
