Gauhati High Court
Gauranga Bhattacharjee vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 22 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010229552021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/51/2022
GAURANGA BHATTACHARJEE
SOLE PROPRIETOR OF
M/S B G ENGINEEERING CO.,
S/O LATE ANUKUL BHATTACHARJEE,
R/O- CHANDMARI, MAKUM JUNCTION,
P.O- MAKUM, PIN- 786170, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-01
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GST
HQRS GUWAHATI
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI-01
ASSAM
3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
DIBRUGARH
MILAN NAGAR
F LANE
P.O- C.R BUILDING
DIBRUGARH-786003
Page No.# 2/5
4:JOINT COMMISSSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES
TAX
MILAN NAGAR
F LANE
P.O- C.R BUILDING
DIBRUGARH-786003
5:MEMBERS DESIGNATED COMMITTEE
UNDER SVLDR SCHEME 2019
MILAN NAGAR
F LANE
P.O- C.R BUILDING
DIBRUGARH-786003
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT (A/E)
CENTRAL GST DIVISION
TINSUKIA
DURGABARI ROAD
TINSUKIA
PIN-786123
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT(TAR)
OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
CENTRAL GST DIVISION
DURGABARI ROAD
RANGAGORA ROAD
TINSUKIA
PIN-786125
8:THE INSPECTOR (RECOVERY)
CENTRAL GST DIVISION
DURGABARI ROAD
RANGAGORA ROAD
TINSUKIA
PIN-78612
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT
Date : 22-02-2022
Heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner M/S B G Engineering Co. is an assessee under the GST laws
bearing registration No. AIKPB3945MST001. For the purpose of payment of
service tax for the period 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, the petitioner availed the
benefit of one time settlement scheme known as Sabka Vishwas (Legacy
Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in short SVLDRS. The scheme is stated to
have been valid up to 30.06.2020. In other words it has to be understood that
any of the assessee who were in default of payment of service tax could have
availed the benefit of the scheme up to 30.06.2020. In response thereof, the
petitioner by the remittance order dated 30.06.2020 had remitted an amount of
Rs.1,25,629.60 paisa in favour of the department towards payment of the
service tax for the aforesaid period. The payment was made in respect of an
Account Number 002000STUR01056292020062244417. As per the Mandate
Form Details available at Page-25, the total duty amount the petitioner was
liable to pay was Rs.1,25,629.20 paisa and the payment was required to have
been made before 30.06.2020. As the petitioner had paid an amount of
Rs.1,25,629.60 paisa in place of Rs.1,25,629.20 paisa as was assessed, the
payment was rejected, meaning thereby that by virtue of such rejection the
petitioner was refused the benefit of the SVLDRS allowance scheme. On a
representation being submitted, the authorities in the GST department had
passed the speaking order No.01/2021/ SVLDRS, wherein in paragraph 19(e)
thereof it was provided that as the last date of making payment of tax amount
Page No.# 4/5
had not been extended by the Board, therefore, the request of the assessee to
allow them to pay the exact amount as estimated in SVLDRS-3 on a later date
cannot be accepted.
3. Being aggrieved, this petition is instituted. Considering the entire
conspectus of the facts leading to this writ petition would clearly reveal that
there was an entitlement of the petitioner to avail the SVLDRS benefits scheme
and to pay the required tax amount on or before 30.06.2020. The tax amount to
be paid was assessed to Rs.1.25,629.20 paisa but for some reason the amount
paid was Rs.1,25,629.60 paisa. It is taken note of that the amount of Rs.
1,25,629.60 was paid on or before the last date and the only discrepancy was
that instead of Rs.1.25,629.20 paisa, an amount of Rs. 1,25,629.60 paisa was
paid, i.e. 0.40 paisa more. In the circumstance, it cannot be said that the
petitioner had not paid the tax amount to the department on or before the last
date of such payment under the scheme nor it is a case that the petitioner had
paid any amount less than the required amount that was to have been paid.
4. In the circumstance, although technically the department may have
rejected the payment of taxes by the petitioner on 30.06.2020 but such
rejection itself would also have to be considered to be arbitrary from the point
of view that the department could either have accepted the excess payment
amounting to Rs. 1,25,629.60 or the excess amount of 40 paisa could have
been returned to the petitioner instead of rejecting the entire amount.
5. In the circumstance, the subsequent offer of the petitioner to tender the
exact amount and rejection of the same by the department on the ground that
the payment was made on the last date of payment also cannot be accepted.
The subsequent payment of the petitioner cannot be said to be a late offer of
payment and it has to be construed to be an act of repayment of the amount
Page No.# 5/5
which was already paid earlier but was rejected.
6. In view of the above, interest of justice will be made if the amount required
to be paid by the petitioner is paid and the department accepts it to be the
payment that was made on or before 30.06.2020. The payment be made within
two weeks from today. In the event, it is not paid, the department will be at
liberty to pass any order.
7. An issue had arisen that as the portal under the SVLDRS has been closed
by the Department, therefore, the payment cannot be accepted through the
online method. If it is so, the petitioner may tender the required amount by
means of a Challan from a Nationalized Bank to be deposited in the appropriate
account of the GST Department.
Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
