ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of sponge iron. In the course of its operations, the Central Excise authorities had attached the goods of the petitioner on account of non-payment of central excise. Initially, 1636 mts. of sponge iron, valued at Rs. 2,37,18,155/-, was attached on 29.09.2016. Subsequently, 4300 mts. of sponge iron was attached on 18.01.2019 to recover an amount of Rs. 8,38,09,828/-. At that stage, the Government of India had introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) for the purpose of closing past disputes and to ensure early recovery of unpaid taxes. As the petitioner was eligible to apply under the said scheme, an application was made for settlement of all liabilities under the Central Excise Act. The authorities had thereupon, crystallised the amount due under the scheme as Rs. 2,56,91,472/-. This amount had to be paid by 30.06.2020. It appears that upon an application made by the tax payer, this time limit could be extended to 30.9.2020. 2. As the petitioner was not in a position to raise necessary funds, it sought, by letter dated 29.8.2019, the sale of the sponge iron attached by the department and to adjust the sale proceeds against the amounts payable under the scheme. W.P. No. 15293 of 2019 was filed, in this Court, seeking a direction to the Excise Department to sell the sponge iron attached by it. The said writ petition is pending. 3. While the matters stood thus, the sponge iron, which was attached by the Central Excise Department, got damaged due to a natural calamity on 03.10.2019. This sponge iron had been insured with the 6th respondent in the name of the Central Excise department, by the Petitioner. A claim for compensation of Rs. 10 crores was filed before the 6th respondent on account of the loss suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner also had dues under the GST Act as well as the Central Excise Act. After the insurance claim had been made, the petitioner, by letter dated 10.11.2019, requested the 3rd Respondent to receive the entire compensation that would be paid by the 6th Respondent and adjust a sum of Rs. 2,56,91,472/- under the scheme and transfer the remaining payment to the Assistant Commissioner of State GST, Ananthapur Division. After the insurance claim had been made, the petitioner, by letter dated 10.11.2019, requested the 3rd Respondent to receive the entire compensation that would be paid by the 6th Respondent and adjust a sum of Rs. 2,56,91,472/- under the scheme and transfer the remaining payment to the Assistant Commissioner of State GST, Ananthapur Division. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent had addressed a letter dated 13.11.2019 to the Branch Manager of the 6th respondent, calling upon the 6th respondent to issue a demand draft of the compensation payable by the 6th respondent in favour of the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Tax, Tirupati and not to release any amount to the petitioner without prior approval of the department. The petitioner had reiterated its request of 10.11.2019, by another letter dated 27.11.2019. 4. In reply to the said requests of the Petitioner, the third respondent by his impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2019, had rejected the request of the Petitioner on the ground that "the amounts to be payable under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 are to be deposited under a separate accounting head, as was mandated by the Reserve Bank of India, and therefore, your request for adjustment of the insurance amount towards Central Excise/Service Tax dues, as well as the transfer of amount to the State Tax Department is not possible, inasmuch as application for tax relief under SVLDR Scheme and appropriation of the same from the insurance amount are two different issues, which have to be dealt with separately having no nexus." 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the said refusal, by way of the impugned proceedings of 10.12.2019, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The Petitioner was also aggrieved by the stoppage of issuance of waybills by the state taxation authorities and sought certain directions in that regard in this writ petition. 6. The Respondents 1 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the amounts paid by the insurance company cannot be adjusted against the payment under the scheme. The relevant pleading in the Counter affidavit is as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that, the website www.cbic-gst.gov.in carried a banner on SVLDRS payment and inter alia, it reads "The SVLDRS payment must be made only using system-drafted, non-editable SVLDR challan. The relevant pleading in the Counter affidavit is as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that, the website www.cbic-gst.gov.in carried a banner on SVLDRS payment and inter alia, it reads "The SVLDRS payment must be made only using system-drafted, non-editable SVLDR challan. Taxpayers may generate it by clicking on 'make payment' at the bottom of Form 3." In other words, the SVLDR scheme does not have any provision whereby the Department can adjust/appropriate any amounts received by way of auction or from insurance companies, etc. In the light of the said situation, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected." 7. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the official respondents that any amounts paid by the 6th respondent-insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to ask for adjustment of the compensation amount payable by the 6th respondent against the amount due under the scheme. He further submits that the 6th respondent had issued a joint despatch voucher for a sum of Rs. 4,60,73,182/- dated 29.09.2020 for paying out the said money to the Central Excise Department. Sri Krishna Grandhi, appearing for the 6th Respondent submits that the 6th Respondent is ready and willing to pay the aforesaid compensation amount, in any manner, this Court directs. 8. Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the benefit of the scheme is available only to those tax payers, who pay the amount crystallised under the scheme in the manner in which it is stipulated and as no payments have been made by the petitioner in the manner prescribed, it would have to be treated that the benefit of the scheme is not available to the petitioner any more. Sri Kumar also took the stand that, the last date for payment of dues under the scheme was 30.06.2020, which was extended to 30.09.2020 subject to some conditions, and since no payment was made by that date, the petitioner cannot now seek to make payment. 9. The dues payable by the Petitioner has now been crystallised at Rs. 2,56,91,472/-. On payment of this amount, under the scheme, the Petitioner would have cleared its entire liability to the central excise authorities. The compensation being paid by the 6th Respondent is Rs. 4,60,73,182/-. 9. The dues payable by the Petitioner has now been crystallised at Rs. 2,56,91,472/-. On payment of this amount, under the scheme, the Petitioner would have cleared its entire liability to the central excise authorities. The compensation being paid by the 6th Respondent is Rs. 4,60,73,182/-. This would mean that the entire due of the Department is being cleared and a surplus of Rs. 2,03,81,710/- would remain. The stand of the Respondents appears to be that the Petitioner should raise a further sum of Rs. 2,56,91,472/- to be paid under the correct head and then seek refund of the compensation amount of Rs. 4,60,73,182/-. 10. The stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme. As pointed out by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited v. Union of India and ors., : CDJ 2020 DHC 640, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under the Central Excise and Service Tax and to allow the businesses to make a fresh beginning. The stand of the Respondents in this regard is clearly hyper technical and arbitrary. The further stand of the Respondents that the last date for payment has expired on 30.09.2020 is also not acceptable. The delay in receiving payment is on account of the refusal of the Respondent No. 3 to adjust the compensation amount payable by the 6th Respondent against the crystallised due under the scheme. The 6th Respondent had also issued the discharge voucher on 29.9.2020 and as such it cannot be said that the offer to pay had not been made before the last date. 11. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose off this Writ petition with the following directions: 1. The Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent or such authorised officer on behalf of the central excise department shall sign and submit the Joint discharge voucher to the 6th Respondent within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 2. Upon such receipt of the joint discharge voucher, the 6th Respondent shall deposit the sum of Rs. 2. Upon such receipt of the joint discharge voucher, the 6th Respondent shall deposit the sum of Rs. 4,60,73,182/- with the 3rd Respondent within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the discharge voucher. 3. Upon receipt of the compensation amount, the 3rd Respondent shall adjust a sum of Rs. 2,56,91,472/- or such additional sum necessary for full payment of the dues crystallised under the scheme. 4. The 3rd Respondent shall remit the remaining Rs. 2,03,81,710/-, or lesser amount after adjustment of the dues under the scheme, to the 5th Respondent for adjustment of the dues of the Petitioner under central GST and refund of any surplus that may arise after such adjustment to the Petitioner. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.