M/S Shree Engineering Works Through Its Proprietor vs Union Of India And Others

Sheel Nagu, J

The challenge herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) by which an amount of Rs.17,09,624/-along with interest of Rs.11,72,421/- has been sought by issuance of notice u/S. 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017.

2 . As projected by learned counsel for petitioner the facts disclose that petitioner to avail the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme, 2019) preferred an application for availing benefit of discounted tax under the scheme vide Annexure P/3. Thereafter the petitioner was issued notice to avail personal hearing afforded to him vide Form No.SVLDRS-2 dated 22.10.2019 vide Annexure R/1. The petitioner vide Annexure R/2 Form No.SVLDRS-2A agreed to the estimated amount determined by the Designated Committee. Accordingly, vide Annexure R/3 Form No.SVLDRS 3 dated 13.12.2019 the petitioner was directed to deposit the discounted amount of Rs.3,31,925/-.

2 .1 The petitioner did not come forward to deposit the said amount till the last extended date prescribed i.e. 30/06/2020.

3 . The claim put up before this Court is that some amount of tax was deposited by the petitioner earlier in regard to the same assessment year but due to inadvertence could not be claimed while applying under the said Scheme.

4 . What the petitioner wants in this petition is to reopen his case under the said Scheme after the last date which is not possible as that would amount to putting the clock back and tinkering with the scheme and allowing the petitioner to adopt procedure dehorse the Scheme. The Apex Court in M/s Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2070/2022 decided on 18.02.2022 while dealing with somewhat similar situation has passed an order in the following manner :

"It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme, i.e., within 30 days.

In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government.

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5 . This Court also in W.P. No.4805/2022 decided on 16.06.2022 passed similar order declining relief to the petitioner therein by relying upon the said verdict of Apex Court.

6 . In view of above, this Court cannot help the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has to take recourse to remedy under the provisions of CGST Act, as per law.

With the above said observation, the petition stands dismissed.