Rajasthan High Court
M/S Kamla Casting Private Limited vs Union Of India ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shubha Mehta
[2023/RJJP/001453]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18734/2022
M/s Kamla Casting Private Limited, A Private Limited Company,
Represented Herein Thorugh Its Director Sh. Naresh Sharma S/o
Sh. H.l. Sharma, Aged About 40 Years R/o A-30 Shivnagar,
Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan . 302030.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Commissioner, The Designated Committee Under The
Sabka Vishwas (Legal Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019,
Jaipur Commissionerate, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Goods And Service Tax
Range, VII, Jaipur, 2Nd Floor, CP-21-22-23, VKI Area,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
Ms. Vartika Mehra
Ms. Shruti Pareek
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
03/02/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition wants that an
appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to allow him to avail
the benefit of the scheme Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and that he may be permitted to make
the payment, as determined by the Designated Committee in
Form-SVLDRS-3, to avail the said benefit.
[2023/RJJP/001453] (2 of 3) [CW-18734/2022]
3. It appears that the petitioner applied online for the benefit of
the aforesaid scheme, whereupon Form-SVLDRS-3 was generated
and the petitioner was required to deposit the requisite amount,
as mentioned therein, within a period of 30 days.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he
made efforts to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time
stipulated, but on account of technical glitches the amount was
not accepted online. Therefore, merely for the reason that he
could not deposit the amount within a period of 30 days, he ought
not to be denied the benefit of the scheme. The aforesaid scheme
introduced by the Finance Act No.2 of 2019 offers opportunity to
the assessee to seek closure of any dispute involving indirect tax,
subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner applied
for the benefit of the scheme in December, 2019 within time but
he could not deposit the requisite amount within 30 days, as
mentioned in the SVLDRS-3.
5. The petitioner alleges that he could not deposit the amount
on account of technical glitches, but no specific glitches have been
pleaded as to why the amount could not be deposited. There is no
material on record which can indicate that the petitioner made any
effort to deposit the amount online within the stipulated period.
6. The petitioner on failure to deposit the amount online for any
reason had not even made any application for accepting the
payment in the physical form.
7. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Yashi
Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2021
SCC Online All 1032, in an identical case, held that the
petitioner who has not deposited the amount within the time
[2023/RJJP/001453] (3 of 3) [CW-18734/2022]
granted, in the absence of any provision to extend the time, is not
entitled for any further time to deposit the same.
8. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Allahabad High
Court has not been disturbed even by the Supreme Court as the
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2070/2022-
Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in
2022 SCC Online SC 723, against the same has been dismissed
on 18.02.2022.
9. It may be pertinent to mention here that though the
petitioner could not deposit the amount within the time of 30 days
stipulated in the SVLDRS-3, he could not even deposit the said
amount within the extended period of scheme which was extended
up to 30.06.2020. We do not find even any material on record
which could substantiate that the petitioner made effort to deposit
the amount even on 22.06.2020, as alleged.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no
good reason to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter
and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
