"(1) ST/30315/2023 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Single Member Bench Court – I Service Tax Appeal No. 30315 of 2023 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX-SC-AP2-018-21-22 (APP-II) dt.19.01.2022 passed by CCT (Appeals-II), Hyderabad) CSN Logistics Pvt Ltd Mr. CS Narendar, Villa No.10, KK Nagar, Padmasri Hills, Suncity, Hyderabad – 500 086 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Secunderabad - GST Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 004 ……Respondent Appearance Shri Ram Sharma Chunduru, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri K. Srinivas Reddy, AR for the Respondent. Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30346/2024 Date of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date of Decision: 31.07.2024 [Order per: A.K. JYOTISHI] M/s CSN Logistics Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) are engaged in providing logistic services. The Appellants availed an amnesty scheme called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (in short ‘SVLDRS’) and applied for the same on 31.12.2019 for payment of Service Tax of Rs.96,916/- for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The Department, after due process of declaration, determined an amount of Rs.2,42,292/- under “voluntary disclosure” category to be paid by the Appellants vide statement in Form SVLDRS-3 in accordance with Rule 6 & Rule 7 of SVLDRS. The Rule 7 (as amended) required that the payment determined under SVLDRS-3 is to be paid on or before June 30, 2020. However, the Department noticed that the payment of the said amount was not made before the said due date. Accordingly, the Department issued SCN (2) ST/30315/2023 demanding Service Tax as well as proposition for imposition of interest and penalty and on adjudication, demand of Service Tax along with interest were confirmed and penalty was also imposed. The Original Authority has only relied on one sole ground for denying the amnesty scheme that the Appellant has failed to pay the determined amount within the due time frame. 2. Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the statutory provisions under the scheme, which came into effect on 01.09.2019 vide Notification No. 04/2019-CE(NT) dt.21.08.2019, upheld the OIO but modified the penalty amount by reducing it to 50%. The Appellants are in Appeal against the said Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.19.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order). 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant is mainly relying on various statutory changes brought in the scheme by way of amendment in Rule 7 and further extension of time limit to pay determined amount in order to avail the amnesty scheme. According to him, the time limit of 30 days was extended by a further period and it was initially extended up to 30.06.2020 and subsequently, up to 30.09.2020. He has also relied on various judgments, wherein, the Hon’ble High Courts have ruled that during certain period, the limitation under various general and special laws, were extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to COVID and the date of payment by the Appellant i.e., 25.08.2020 falls within the said period taking in view the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, on the following judgments: a) RR Housing (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Designated Committee (SVLDRS) & The Superintendent of GST & CE [W.P.No.11601 of 2021 & W.M.P.No. 12352 of 2021 (Madras High Court)] b) N. Sundararajan Vs UOI [W.A.No. 2097 & 2098 of 2021 (Madras High Court)] c) Sew Infrastructure Ltd Vs Director General of GST Intelligence [W.P.No. 17002 of 2020 (High Court of Telangana)] 4. Per contra, the Department submitted, while conceding that the date for making payment under SVLDRS was extended up to 30.06.2020 in terms (3) ST/30315/2023 of Rule 7 (as amended), that the Appellants have discharged determined amount only on 25.08.2020 and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of M/s Yashi Construction Vs UOI [2022-SCC-Online- SC-723], the date cannot be extended beyond what has been provided under the scheme as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Heard both sides and perused the documents. 6. The short question to be decided is whether the payment made on 25.08.2020 by the Appellant would entitle the Appellant to legally discharge the obligations under SVLDRS and therefore, entitled to amnesty from payment of interest and penalty or otherwise. The admitted facts are not in dispute as regards the dates on which it was to be paid as per the Department except that Appellants have said that date was further extended to 30.09.2020 and the actual date of payment i.e., 25.08.2020. The Appellants have also produced documents to substantiate their claim that they were trying to pay before 30.06.2020 and in support of that they have furnished a copy of challan in which a challan was generated for payment of the determined amount where the last date has been indicated as 30.06.2020. However, according to them, because of various technical glitches they were not able to transmit this money and subsequently they tried many times but unfortunately they were not able to remit and finally on 25.08.2020, they were successful in remitting the said amount. I find that even for the period beyond 30.06.2020 the Department was exploring various possibilities as to allow the scheme to those people who had been already issued SVLDRS-3 prior to 30.06.2020 but were not able to pay. In fact, as pointed out by the Appellant, the Department floated an internal letter dt.14.07.2020, seeking certain information from the field formations to find out likely impact by extending the date. It is also noted that it was the Central Government which has made the amendments in the Rules for extending the time limit vide Notification No. 01/2020 dt.14.05.2020, whereby, inter alia, in Rule 7, for the words “within a period of thirty days from the date of its issue”, the words, figures and letters “on or before the 30th day of June, 2020” was substituted. This supports the facts that Rules were being amended by the Central Government to extend the date. (4) ST/30315/2023 7. I have perused the judgments cited by the Appellants and I find that in most of these cases, the Hon’ble High Courts, in the facts of the cases, have allowed the amnesty under the scheme even for the payments made beyond 30.06.2020. One of the major factors which was considered by the Hon’ble High Court was Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in its suo moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020 dt.23.10.2020 extending the period of limitation in all proceedings irrespective of limitations prescribed under general or special laws w.e.f. 15.02.2020 till further orders. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4085 of 2020 dt.17.12.2020, held that the period of limitation which was extended earlier vide Order dt.30.06.2020 was still operative. The relevant portion of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of RR Housing (India) Pvt Ltd (cited supra) is reproduced below: “15. It would be pertinent to point out here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, suo motu, vide order dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.No.3 of 2020, had extended the Mandatory provisions of limitation under various Acts due to the reason of COVID pandemic from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Pursuant to the same, the respondent had also extended the time limit by considering the COVID pandemic situation. . 17. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 27.09.2023 in Special Civil Application No.844 of 2022, was also placed before this Court, wherein the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the extension of time for making payment under the Scheme, was challenged. The said judgment dated 27.09.2023 was dismissed in the SLP stage itself without assigning any reasons. Further it is clear that no submission was made as to whether the provision is mandatory or directory before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and under the said circumstances only, the aforesaid dismissal order was passed. However, the said aspect was pressed before this Court. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the time limit up to 28.02.2022, even where the limitation was fixed under the mandatory laws. Further, as discussed above, there is no doubt that the provision of fixing time limit under the SVLDRS Scheme is directory in nature and that is the reason why the Department had extended the time limit for payment of tax amount under the SVLDRS Scheme by virtue (5) ST/30315/2023 of notifications. When that being the case, the Department is supposed to have extended the time at par with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where it had considered the difficulties faced by the public in mobilizing the money, filing the cases before the Courts, etc., and granted the time limit up to 28.02.2022. However, though the respondent-Department had considered and issued the notifications on 3 occasions, thereafter, they had neither considered the difficulties faced by the Assessee nor issued any notifications extending the time limit for making payment of tax under the scheme.” 8. Similarly, in the case of N. Sundararajan Vs UOI (cited supra), the Hon’ble High Court has referred to Parliament Enactment of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 and held that in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter V of the Finance Act for completion of certain action as stipulated under Chapter V is extended till 30.09.2020 and finally held that time limit of completion of payment of taxes as quantified in Form SVLDRS-3 is still extended till 30.09.2020. The relevant para is reproduced below for ease of reference: “4. The Parliament enacted the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 (Central Act 38 of 2020) (“the Act” for brevity). Chapter-V of the said Act related to relaxation of time limit under Central Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Finance Act, 1994. Section 6 of the said Act states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962 (except sections 30, 30A, 41, 41A, 46 and 47), the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as it stood prior to its omission vide section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017, the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the said Acts which falls during the period from the 20th day of March, 2020 to the 29th day of September, 2020 or such other date after the 29th day of September, 2020 as the Central Government may, by notification, specify, for the completion or compliance of such action as (6) ST/30315/2023 (a) completion of any proceeding or issuance of any order, notice, intimation, notification or sanction or approval, by whatever name called, by any authority, commission, tribunal, by whatever name called; or (b) filing of any appeal, reply or application or furnishing of any report, document, return or statement, by whatever name called, shall, notwithstanding that completion or compliance of such action has not been made within such time, stand extended to the 30th day of September, 2020 or such other date after 30th day of September, 2020 as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. The proviso states that the Central Government may specify different dates for completion or compliance of different actions under Clause (a) or Clause (b). 5. Thus, in terms of the above Act, the time limit prescribed under Chapter-V of the Finance Act for completion of certain actions as stipulated under Chapter-V, stood extended till 30th September, 2020, and Section 6 of the Act deals with two situations, namely, period for completion and period of compliance. Therefore, the said provision has to be given a liberal interpretation and if we do so, the time limit for payment of taxes can be construed to be a time limit for completion of particular act, as stipulated under Chapter-V of the Finance Act. In fact, the said Act has also made certain amendments in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, in Chapter-IV. Thus, the intention of the legislation is to extend the time limit for compliance or completion of certain acts under the Statute, which have W.A.Nos.2097 and 2098 of 2021 been listed therein, and the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has also been amended by extending the time limit. Since Chapter-V of the Act, which deals with relaxation of time limit under Indirect Tax Laws, which stipulates four Tax Laws, which includes Finance Act, 1994, we will be well justified in holding that the time limit for completion of the payment of taxes, as quantified in Form-3, also stood extended till 30.09.2020. If that is the date on which the appellants were required to complete the payment, then the appellant's conduct in approaching this Court by filing the writ petitions on 29.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 can very well be reckoned to be a conduct, which will not be hit by delay and laches.” (7) ST/30315/2023 9. In the case of Sew Infrastructure Ltd (cited supra), though the subject matter was the inability of non-payment of determined amount before 30.09.2020 on account of non-availability of funds which were due from Income Tax Department, the Hon’ble High Court has taken a stand that in this case the amount could have been paid had the Income Tax Department had paid the amount in time. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that for payments made even beyond the due date, the petitioner cannot be considered as defaulter under SVLDRS by considering that they would be deemed to have made payment before 30.06.2020. 10. In essence, all these judgments relied heavily on two aspects, viz., the special relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in view of prevailing COVID situation and also the nature of statutory provisions for granting limitation for making payments and arrived at the conclusion that the payments made beyond 30.06.2020 or for that matter even beyond 30.09.2020 were to be treated as valid payment for discharge of duty determined under SVLDRS. 11. Per contra, the Department has mainly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Yashi Construction Vs UOI (cited supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the Order of Hon’ble High Court, as payments were not made within one month as per Rule 7 and considering there was no scope for extending statutory time limit. However, the fact remains that these dates were subsequently extended by the Department, as also the grant of general amnesty in terms of relaxation for various obligations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were not the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The date of one month expired much before the grant of certain relaxation allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide their Order dt.23.03.2020. The Department has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Coach India [WP(C) No. 20999 of 2022 dt.19.01.2024], wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has interpreted Rule 3, Rule 6 & Rule 7 relying on the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashi Construction (cited supra) and upheld that since the petitioner had not paid amount within the stipulated time they were not entitled for the scheme. In this case also the facts are distinguishable in as much as the 30 days period was expiring on 18.03.2020 (30 days), which admittedly extended up to 30.03.2020 and (8) ST/30315/2023 therefore up to 30.06.2020. The Court also noted that there was no proof of technical glitches. Firstly, in this case also, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision to give general relaxation in limitation has not been considered. 12. I find that in the facts of the case, the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts of Madras and Telangana, as discussed supra, has direct bearing on the facts of the case and therefore, the payment made by the Appellant on 25.08.2020 would be well within the stipulated time required under the scheme, so as to enable them to avail the amnesty. It is not in dispute that Appellants have not paid the determined amount of Rs.2,42,292/- on 25.08.2020, as apparent from the Impugned Order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in Para 11 that amount has already been paid by the Appellant and the same may be appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority, after due verification. 13. Thus, in the facts of the case, respectfully following the judgment cited by the Appellants, I find that the Appellants have discharged their liability as determined under SVLDRS Scheme within permissible time limit and therefore, they were entitled for discharge certificate under SVLDRS-4. Since they have rightly discharged the amount determined under SVLDRS-3, there shall not be any case for any interest or penalty. Accordingly, the demand confirmed by the Department for recovering interest and penalty and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Impugned Order is not sustainable and I hereby set aside the same. The competent authority shall now issue requisite discharge certificate in form SVLDRS-4, if technically feasible, now at this stage. 14. Appeal allowed. (Pronounced in the Open Court on 31.07.2024) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Veda "