Dismissed

M/S Akshay Dan Charan v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC28 Oct 2021CW/6962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 by the cut-off date of 30.06.2020, citing personal illness and technical glitches. The court refused an extension, noting no provision exists for it in the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was not granted an extension of time or immunity from tax liability; writ petition dismissed.

M/S Akshay Dan Charan Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6962/2021

¶3

M/s Akshay Dan Charan, A Proprietorship Firm, Through Its Proprietor Akshay Dan Charan S/o Shri Hardan Barhat Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Barhat, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.

¶7

Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Dept. Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.

¶8

Chief Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jodhpur, Pwd Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

¶10

Superintendent, Central Goods And Service Tax RangeIX, Customs Colony, Mahavir Nagar, Barmer.

¶11

The Tehsildar, Tehsil Barmer, Village Barmer.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Saraswat

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

28/10/2021

¶17

The petitioner has challenged the recovery notice dated 14.08.2020, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, in the following background.

¶18

The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the businesses of providing construction services in respect of commercial/Industrial buildings and civil structures etc., for which

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-6962/2021]

¶21

purpose, the petitioner has made registration under the Services Tax Regime. For the period of financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Service Tax Department was of the opinion that the petitioner was providing taxable services in the form of coal handling and stacking, but on which the petitioner has not paid service tax. The demand of unpaid service tax amounting to Rs.28,11,443/- with interest was, therefore, raised vide order-in-original passed on 10.11.2016. The petitioner’s appeal against the said order-inoriginal was dismissed on 30.07.2018.

¶22

The Government of India introduced an amnesty scheme under the name Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019), hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’ by way of enacting Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019. The Rules for operation of the scheme were notified on 21.08.2019. Broadly stated, as per the scheme, the persons desirous of getting benefit under the said scheme had to deposit a portion of the tax with the Government of India by cut-off date, upon which, the remaining tax would be waived.

¶23

It is undisputed that when the petitioner applied for the benefit of the scheme, the department conveyed the petitioner that in order to take advantage thereof, the petitioner must pay a sum of Rs.10,40,177/-. This was communicated to the petitioner on 21.01.2020. Initially the payment had to be made within certain time which was extended from time to time and the last extension was upto 30.06.2020. After that no further extension has been given and the scheme came to an end. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the amount in question till 30.06.2020.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that on account of his personal ill health in the last few days of June 2020, he was totally

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-6962/2021]

¶27

indisposed and therefore could not make any payment. The petitioner has also set up a case that an attempt was made to make the payment physically, however, the system of the Department would not accept such payment and the petitioner could not make a payment through the portal of the Department.

¶28

Be that as it may, the petitioner missed the last date for making the deposit, upon which, the petitioner’s application stood automatically dismissed in terms of the provisions of the scheme. The Department thereafter started recovery, upon which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we find that as per the admitted facts, the payment had to be made latest by 30.06.2020. The petitioner has not raised any dispute about the computation of the sum payable calculated by the department and conveyed to him. There is no provision in the scheme for extending the time limit for making the payment. In fact, the scheme clearly envisages that upon termination of the said period, the scheme would come to an end. That being the position, on the grounds stated by the petitioner, an order for extension of the scheme cannot be granted.

¶30

In the result, writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶32

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶33

Ashutosh-279

M/S Akshay Dan Charan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Akshay Dan Charan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deu Ram Vs Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Service Sel. Board

Bhawar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Pappu Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S. Rishabh Green Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Mukesh Tyagi

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Raju Devi