Kerala High Court
Jewel Homes Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner on 11 September, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:69344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 31543 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JEWEL HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,
CASA GRANTE BUILDING, KALOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 017,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. P.A. JIHAS.
BY ADV RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX COCHIN,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI,
PIN - 682 018.
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS
(ERSTWHILE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI,
PIN - 682 018.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM RANGE 3,
CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
KOCHI COMMISSONERATE, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN,
KATHRIKKADAVU, COCHIN, PIN - 682 017.
BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:69344
WP(C) 31543/2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of
construction and sale of residential apartments. The petitioner
was an assessee under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
For the period from 01-10-2008 to 30-06-2010, the petitioner
was assessed to pay service tax of Rs.1,41,97,591/- and a
penalty of Rs.1,41,97,591/- together with interest payable
thereon. Ext.P1 is the order dated 24-03-2017 adjudicating the
aforesaid liability on the petitioner. A Dispute Resolution
Scheme known as 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)
Scheme, 2019', was introduced by the Central Government for
settling disputes with assessees like the petitioner. The
petitioner sought to avail the benefit of the scheme for settling
the dispute leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 order. The
petitioner was accordingly issued with a statement under the
scheme (Form No.SVLDRS-3) permitting the petitioner to settle
the liability by paying a sum of Rs.85,18,554.60/-. According to
the petitioner, though Ext.P3 required the petitioner to pay the
amount by 30-06-2020 (in terms of the provisions contained in
Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019), the petitioner was
2024:KER:69344
able to pay the amount only on 03-07-2020. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner was unable to pay the amount on or
before 30-06-2020 only on account of the disruptions caused by
the Covid-19 pandemic.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that in the directions issued by the Supreme Court in
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)No.3 of 2020, the payment made by
the petitioner should be deemed to be within time for the
purposes of the scheme.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the
scheme is a Dispute Resolution Scheme and the terms of the
Dispute Resolution Scheme have to be strictly complied with in
order to enable assessees like the petitioner to obtain benefits
under the scheme. It is submitted that there is no provision
under the scheme for extending the time for payment, and
since admittedly the petitioner has not paid the amounts within
the time specified under the scheme, the petitioner is not
entitled to the benefit of the scheme, and the entire amount
adjudicated under Ext.P1 is liable to be paid by the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
2024:KER:69344
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to
succeed. The fact that the petitioner was entitled to settle the
disputes leading to Ext.P1 order by opting for settlement under
the scheme is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the
petitioner had filed an application for settling the dispute under
the provisions of the scheme and had also been issued a
declaration permitting the petitioner to settle the dispute by
paying a sum of Rs.85,18,554.60/-. It is true that, going by the
provisions of Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2020, the
amount had to be paid on or before 30-06-2024. It cannot be
disputed that towards the end of Mach 2020, the entire country
was placed under lockdown on account of the Covid-19
pandemic, and considering the disruptions caused on account
of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court had taken
cognisance of the difficulties placed by various persons, and
while disposing of Suo Motu Writ Peititon (C)No.3 of 2020 by
order dated 08-03-2021, the Supreme Court had issued the
following directions:
1. "In computing the period of limitation for any suit,
appeal, application or proceeding, the period from
15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.
2024:KER:69344
Consequently, the balance period of limitation
remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become
available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired
during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of
limitation remaining, all persons shall have a
limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the
event the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater
than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also
stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed
under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any
other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for
instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the
court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination
of proceedings.
4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines
for containment zones, to state.
"Regulated movement will be allowed for
medical emergencies, provision of essential
goods and services, and other necessary
functions, such as, time bound applications,
including for legal purposes, and educational
and job-related requirements."
Since the last date for payment under the scheme fell within
2024:KER:69344
the aforesaid period, I am of the view that it is covered by the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in the above order, and
therefore it has to be held that the delay of three days in
remitting the amount under the scheme cannot lead to a
situation where the petitioner is denied the benefits of the
scheme.
The writ petition will therefore stand allowed, directing
that if the petitioner has paid the amounts payable by the
petitioner in terms of the Scheme on 03-07-2020, the same
shall be treated as sufficient compliance of the terms of the
scheme, and the proceedings against the petitioner will stand
regulated accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats
2024:KER:69344
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31543/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 52/2017/ST
DATED 24.03.2017 FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.2008 TO
30.06.2010 ALONG WITH TYPED CLEAR COPY OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1/2020-SVLDRS 2019
DATED 13.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED ONLINE BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 30.12.2019 IN THE
PRESCRIBED FORM NAMELY SVLDRS-1 AND SVLDRS-3
OPTING TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING ARREARS FOR
AN AMOUNT OF RS. 85,18,554.60/- AFTER
AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AS PER THE
SCHEME.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-RECEIPT DATED 03.07.2020
ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT OF
RS. 85,18,554.60/- PAYABLE AS PER THE SCHEME.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 02.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
