Gujarat High Court
Vijay Travels vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26730 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26921 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIJAY TRAVELS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVEN PARIKH SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR NIRAV P SHAH(6475)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PY DIVYESHWAR for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deven
Parikh with learned advocate Mr. Nirav Shah
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.
P.Y. Divyeshwar for the respondents.
2. Since the issues involved in both these
petitions are identical, the matters have
been heard together and would be disposed of
by this common judgment.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr. P.Y. Divyeshwar waives service of notice
of rule on behalf of the respondents.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are
recorded from Special Civil Application No.
26730 of 2022.
5. By way of this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for a direction to CGST and Central
Excise Authorities to accept the declared
amount manually as per the statements issued
in Form SVLDRS-3 and further for a direction
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
to issue Discharge Certificate in Form
SVLDRS-4 upon manual payment of declared
amount.
6. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner is a proprietory concern engaged
in the business of providing rent a cab
service.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was under bona fide belief that
the service provided by the petitioners is
not taxable and hence had not been paying
service tax. The department after conducting
inquiry had issued various show cause notices
demanding service tax from the petitioner.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was eligible to make a declaration
under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 to settle the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
disputes and therefore, the petitioner opted
for the scheme to settle the long pending
dispute, for which the petitioner filed four
declarations under section 125 of the Finance
Act, 1994 (For short "the Act") separately
for each notice under Form SVLDRS-1 on
departmental portal.
9. The declaration was considered by the
Designated Committee as provided under
section 126 of the Act and a statement as
provided under section 127 of the Act was
issued online in Form SVLDRS-3 in each case.
10.Due to Covid lockdown, the last date for
payment of amount under the Dispute
Resolution Scheme was extended upto
30.06.2020 by instruction dated 29.05.2020.
11.It is the case of the petitioner that as per
the procedure prescribed under the Scheme,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
upon issuance of statement in SVLDRS-3,
challan for payment of amount is to be
generated online on the departmental portal,
however, in case of the petitioner the
challans for payment could not be generated
on the protal due to technical reason. As the
last date was nearing, the petitioner had
approached the jurisdictional departmental
authority various times to help in generating
the challans for payment. The Range authority
had also instructed the petitioner to make
payment by email dated 19th June, 2020.
12.Upon receipt of the email, the petitioner
through its reply dated 19th June, 2020
replied that the portal is still not
accepting online payment.
13.It is the case of the petitioner that to
comply with the payment of amount before the
last date, the petitioner tried to make
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
payment through RTGS on 29.06.2020 to the RBI
account. The amount was debited from his
account and on the same day, the amount was
re-credited in the petitioner's account.
14.As the extended last date for payment was
30.06.2020, the petitioner approached the
department by email dated 30.06.2020 to allow
them to make payment by demand draft for
discharging liability under SVLDRS. As
nothing was forthcoming from the department,
the petitioner again addressed various
department authorities vide email dated
18.09.2020 and requested the authority to
allow payment manually by service tax
challan.
15.It is the case of the petitioner that in the
meanwhile, the proprietor Karta of HUF Shri
Haresh Trivedi expired on 22.04.2021 due to
Covid.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
16.Thereafter the adjudicating authority had
fixed personal hearing vide letter dated
13.07.2021 in one pending show cause notice
dated 04.04.2018 wherein SVLDRS declaration
was filed and statement in Form SVLDRS-3 was
issued. Thereafter, the petitioner had
appointed new Consultant/Chartered
Accountants who informed the department that
they need some time as they are recently
engaged and requested for accommodation in
the matter. The Chartered Accountant also
addressed letter dated 26.07.2021 to the
adjudicating authority reiterating the
request.
17.On 08.12.2021, the Chartered Accountant again
addressed the adjudicating authority in
detail regarding applications filed under
SVLDRS and informed the department that they
do not have login credentials and therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
they are unable to fetch correct details from
the portal. It was also informed that they
could not make the payment online due to
technical difficulty on the portal.
18.The adjudicating authority again fixed the
matter for hearing on 28.12.2021 vide letter
dated 22.12.2021. It is the case of the
petitioner that said letter was received by
the petitioner on 29.12.2021 and therefore,
vide letter dated 30.12.2021 the petitioner
again requested for granting fresh hearing
and also requested to consider the reply
dated 8.12.2021.
19.It is the case of the petitioner that no
further hearing was granted and order in
original dated 16.02.2022 was passed ex-parte
without considering the representations of
the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
20.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision,
the petitioner has approached this Court.
21.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deven Parikh for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had tried to make payment in the RBI account
which was also debited from their account,
however due to technical reasons, not known
to the petitioner, the same was re-credited.
Hence the petitioner bona fidely made all
efforts to make good the payment and settle
the dispute, however the same could not be
done due to technical reasons. It was
therefore, submitted that the intended
benefit under the SVLDRS is required to be
granted to the petitioner.
22.It was further submitted that the Scheme is
introduced to allow the defaulter to pay the
amount and to settle the disputes arisen
under the ertswhile Central Excise and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
Service Tax regime. The petitioner had
correctly filed the declaration form which
was accepted by the Designated Committee and
statement for payment as provided under
section 127(1) of the SVLDRS was issued and
there was no difference in the declared
liability and accepted liability.
23.It was further submitted that upon issuance
of Form SVLDRS-3, the petitioner was required
to generate challan on the portal, however,
the same could not be generated due to
technical glitch which fact was brought to
the notice of the jurisdictional Range
Superintended before the last date, however
the said glitch could not be rectified. The
petitioner also made attempt to make payment
on 29.06.2020 and the amount was debited from
his account, however the same was re-credited
into his account. Such fact was brought to
the notice of the department on 30.06.2020
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
and the petitioner also requested to allow
them to make payment by demand draft which
was not allowed.
24.It was further submitted that the Government
has introduced this one time measure for
liquidation of past disputes of Central
Excise and Service Tax. The basic aim of the
scheme is to settle the pending litigation
pertaining to service tax and excise duty and
therefore, the petitioner ought to have been
permitted to deposit declared amount manually
instead of taking hyper technical approach.
25.It was further submitted that even after the
last date, huge amount from various
declarants was pending as per the data of the
Board and therefore, the Board had issued
directions to Zonal Officers vide instruction
dated 14.07.2020 whereby Zonal Commissioners
were directed to contact the declarants who
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
could not pay amount declared due to any
difficulty and likely to pay in future. It
was submitted that the departmental authority
had failed to follow the aforesaid
instruction and therefore, the petitioner may
be permitted to pay amount manually.
26.It was further submitted that the Department
had further issued instruction dated
17.03.2021 by which they have directed the
Designated Authority to manually process
declaration in cases where the High Courts
have directed to do so.
27.It was further submitted that petitioner was
ready and willing to pay the interest at
appropriate rate after the last date of
payment and therefore, the petitioner may be
allowed to make payment under the SVLDRS and
further be allowed to settle the disputes in
true spirit of SVLDRS.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
28.On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. P.Y.
Divyeshwar for the respondents submitted that
the petitioner had provided services falling
under the category of rent a cab scheme
operator. An inquiry was conducted by the
department which revealed that the petitioner
had provided the services without payment of
service tax. As per the provisions of the
Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules, the service
provider was required to assess correct value
of services provided and to pay applicable
service tax on that value. It was submitted
that even though the petitioner had knowledge
of correct taxable value, they had not
discharged their service tax liability in
their ST-3 returns and they had deliberately
suppressed the correct taxable value and thus
not paid the correct service tax leviable on
the taxable value of service
provided/received with a view to evade
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
payment of service tax.
29.It was submitted that several show cause
notices were issued to the petitioner for
demand of applicable service tax along with
interest which were later adjudicated and
total demand of service tax liability
confirmed against the petitioner was Rs.
47.85 lakh along with applicable interest and
penalty. Thereafter several letters were
addressed to the petitioner by the Range
Officers of the department, however, the
petitioner informed that they had preferred
an appeal against the said orders before
Commissioner (Appeals) which appeal was
dismissed as the petitioner failed to pay the
pre-deposit amount of 25% of the service tax
confirmed.
30.It was further submitted that a designated
committee as per SVLDRS had issued Form
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
SVLDRS-3 on 21.02.2020 and 29.02.2020 that
determined amount to be payable by the
petitioner. The petitioner had to pay the
amount payable as per Form SVLDRS-3 within a
period of 30 days from the issuance of
SVLDRS-3. However, due to covid-19 pandemic,
the last date for payment under SVLDRS was
extended upto 30.06.2020 vide instruction
dated 29.05.2020. The department had also
requested the petitioner to pay the
taxes/amount as determined under Form SVLDRS-
3. However, the petitioner failed to make
payment. It was submitted that the petitioner
chose to make payment only on the last date
though considerable time was available with
the petitioner. It was submitted that the
petitioner did make an attempt to make the
payment through RTGS on 29.06.2020, however
same could not materialise.
31.It was further submitted that as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
report of the ICEGATE portal on 30.06.2020,
transactions were initiated and 1378 RBI
payment intimations were also received. Thus,
the ICEGATE portal was functioning properly
and no technical glitch was reported.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner
that he tried to make payment but due to
technical glitch same could not be done is
without merits.
32. It was further submitted that a Tax Payers
Manual for SVLDR Scheme, 2019 had been placed
on the CBIC website wherein the manner of
generation of challan and payment methods
were explained with screenshots. As per the
instructions in the said manual, after
generation of the challan, the petitioner was
required to generate the mandate form and
proceed to make payment through NEFT/RTGS.
Since the working process under the scheme
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
was automated, any technical issues were to
be communicated by email to the CBIC Mitra
helpdesk. However, the petitioner has failed
to make such email communication with the
CBIC Mitra Helpdesk regarding the issue.
33.It was further submitted that the entire
working process under the SVLDRS was
automated and therefore, manual payment under
SVLDRS is not acceptable as per the
provisions of the SVLDRS. It was therefore,
submitted that the petitions lack merit and
therefore, the same may be dismissed.
34.Having considered the submissions made by
learned advocate for the respective parties,
it is not in dispute that the petitioner was
required to make the payment as determined in
Form SVLDRS-3 and the petitioner tried to
make the payment through RTGS on 29.06.2020,
however, the same was not accepted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
receiving bank and the payment was returned
to the petitioner which is apparent from the
bank statement produced on record.
35.It also appears from the record that the
petitioner could not generate the challan
successfully for making the payment and after
the advice of its Chartered Accountant, tried
making payment through NEFT/RTGS out of
abundance caution and to demonstrate the bona
fide of the petitioner to make the payment as
determined under the Scheme by respondent
No.2 Designated Committee. In view of the
bona fide attempt made by the petitioner to
make the payment cannot be doubted and
therefore, the substantive benefit of the
Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner on
the ground of procedural technicalities more
particularly, in time of Covid-19 Pandemic.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
36.The basic object of the Scheme is to reduce
litigation by allowing the eligible assessee
to make the payment of the outstanding dues
after availing the relief under the Scheme.
As per the provisions of the Scheme,
respondent No.2 has issued a statement as
provided under section 127 of Chapter-V of
the Finance Act (No.02) 2019 determining the
amount payable by the petitioner under the
Scheme. Therefore, in the given facts and
circumstances, the petitioner made bona fide
attempt to make the payment as determined
under the Scheme and is also prepared to pay
the amount in question in accordance with the
Scheme along with interest for the period for
which the petitioner was not permitted to
make payment by respondent authorities
considering extreme Pandemic condition of
Covid-19, we are of the opinion that this is
a fit case for invocation of the powers under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
37.This Court in similar circumstances in case
of M/s. L G Chaudhary v. Union of India
(judgment dated 14.10.2022 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.12366 of 2021)
allowed the petition by directing the
respondent authorities to accept the payment
as specified in SVLDRS-3 along with interest
and grant the benefit of SVLDRS to the
petitioner therein.
38.In view of the above, these petitions are
allowed and the respondent authorities are
directed to accept the payment as specified
in SVLDRS-3 along with interest
@ 9% per annum from 30.06.2020 till the date
of payment and grant the benefit of the
Scheme to the petitioner. The petitioner
shall deposit the said amount with interest
on or before 09.02.2025. As a consequence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/26730/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
the impugned order-in-original dated
16.02.2022 passed by respondent No.4 is
quashed and set aside so as to grant benefit
of the Scheme to the petitioner. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(D.N.RAY,J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
