Facts of the Case

  • Petitioner Profile: The case was brought forward by M/s Chopra Construction, a partnership firm represented by its partner, Mr. Akash Chopra, located in Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
  • Application Under SVLDRS: The petitioner opted for settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, where a final settlement sum of Rs. 5,26,272/- was legally determined and quantified by the Designated Committee.
  • Missed Deadline: The absolute statutory final date designated for depositing the quantified settlement amount under the provisions of the Scheme was June 30, 2020.
  • Reasons for Default: The petitioner failed to make the payment within the prescribed timeline, citing certain unforeseen and compelling circumstances.
  • Refusal by Revenue Authorities: When the petitioner subsequently attempted to remit the settled amount after the expiry date, the respondent revenue authorities refused to accept the late payment due to the lack of any official legislative extension of the Scheme past June 30, 2020.
  • Writ Invocation: Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh under writ jurisdiction, seeking a formal directive to compel the respondents to accept the delayed payment.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, can extend the statutory timelines or cut-off dates explicitly prescribed under a voluntary tax amnesty scheme like the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
  • Whether a delayed payment under the SVLDRS can be validly accepted by the Revenue authorities post the official expiration of the scheme without modifying the core statutory framework of the executive scheme.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the failure to deposit the settled sum of Rs. 5,26,272/- before the cut-off date of June 30, 2020, was entirely unintentional and driven by genuinely restrictive, compelling circumstances.
  • It was requested that a liberal approach be adopted by the Court to fulfill the basic objective of the scheme, which is to resolve legacy disputes, by permitting a delayed deposit.
  • The petitioner contended that since the quantum of tax liability had already been determined, the revenue would not be prejudiced if they were permitted to deposit the full amount along with appropriate interest or late fees if necessary.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The learned counsel representing the Central GST & Excise authorities (Respondents No. 2 & 3) vehemently opposed the petition, stating that neither the department nor the judiciary has the jurisdiction to alter the timelines of a scheme that has reached its definitive legal closure.
  • The respondents placed strong reliance on a clear judicial precedent set by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India & Others (Writ Tax No. 541/2021, decided on August 11, 2021).
  • They highlighted that the Allahabad High Court had rejected an identical prayer for an extension of time under writ jurisdiction, and this legal stance was subsequently and firmly upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India via its order dated February 18, 2022, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of M/s Yashi Construction.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reliance on Binding Precedent: The High Court of Chhattisgarh, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy, took judicial note of the legal principles settled in the case of M/s Yashi Construction.
  • Supreme Court's Stance: The Court recalled the absolute view taken by the Apex Court which declared:

"If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government."

  • Decision: Finding the facts of the present writ petition completely identical to the settled precedent, the High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the petition on the exact same grounds.
  • Dismissal: Consequently, the High Court held that modifying statutory parameters or deadlines of an executive scheme falls beyond the realm of judicial interference. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Important Clarification

This ruling re-emphasizes a vital principle in tax jurisprudence: amnesty schemes or dispute resolution schemes (such as the SVLDRS) are conditional concessions offered by the government. The timelines built into these schemes are strict limits rather than flexible guidelines. Courts will not use their extraordinary powers to extend these timelines, as doing so would amount to rewriting the policy guidelines drafted by the legislative or executive branch of government.

Section Involved

  • Scheme/Act: Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
  • Provision Focus: Statutory deadline compliance and lack of discretionary power under writ jurisdiction to modify or extend timeline provisions established by the executive/legislature under the Scheme.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783143112_491compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.