The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and S.M. Modak while setting aside the impugned order opined that the respondents while rejecting the declaration form submitted by the petitioner also did not grant any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Facts
On 5th July 2019, the Central Government proposed Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (‘the said Scheme’) in the budget for 2019-20 with an aim to assist taxpayers in clearing the baggage of disputes under erstwhile laws (service tax and central excise) which are subsumed in the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Vide notification dated 21st August 2019, the said Scheme was notified and introduced w.e.f. 1st September 2020. On 4th September 2019, the respondents issued summons to the petitioner for giving oral evidence or to submit relevant documents.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Electronic Declaration Form under SVLRDS-1 on CBEC website under ‘voluntary category’ and declared Rs.36,24,108/- as the amount of tax dues for the period 1st September 2015 to 30th June 2017. However, the respondent no.3 passed an order to the petitioner rejecting the said declaration on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to opt for the said Scheme as the investigation against the petitioner had been initiated before they opted for the said Scheme.
The petitioner protested the said order and pointed out as to why the declaration form submitted by the petitioner could not have been rejected. The respondents rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the investigation was initiated against the petitioner and thus the petitioner was not eligible to file declaration under ‘voluntary category’. The petitioner thereafter made various representations to the respondents for considering their application. The petitioner again filed Electronic Declaration Form, which was once again rejected by the respondents. The impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the declaration forms filed by the petitioner was on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to opt under the said Scheme, since investigation was already initiated against the petitioner and was pending. The petitioner thus filed this writ petition for various reliefs.
Contentions made
Appellant- The investigation was started by the respondents by issuing summons on 30th August 2019 i.e., much after the cut-off date i.e. 30th June, 2019 and thus the declaration form submitted by the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that the investigation was initiated against the petitioner. The investigation initiated after the cut-off would be of no consequence and on such ground the declaration forms submitted by the petitioner could not have been rejected. Reliance was placed on M/s. New India Civil Erectors Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors.
Respondent- Even if the summons were issued by the respondents after 30th June, 2019, the powers of the respondents u/s 129(2)(c) of the said Scheme to continue the investigation are not taken away. Reliance was placed on M/s. New India Civil Erectors Private Limited (supra).
In the rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a declaration under ‘voluntary category’ and had paid the tax due as payable. He does not dispute the powers of the respondents to take action u/s 129(2)(c), if within a period of one year of issuance of discharge certificate, if the respondents find any material particular as furnished by the petitioner in declaration as false.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“In the facts of this case the respondents had issued a summons only on 30th August, 2019 i.e. after 30th June, 2019 and thus summons issued after the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019 could not be the ground for declaring the application filed by the petitioner under SVLRDS-1 ineligible. In our view, the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in case of M/s. New India Civil Erectors Private Limited (supra) and also contrary to the objectives, purposes and intent of the said Scheme introduced by the Central Government... The respondents while rejecting the declaration form submitted by the petitioner also did not grant any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner… In our view, the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.”
“However, we take cognizance of the powers of the respondents u/s 129(2)(c) of the said Scheme which empowers the respondents to take an appropriate action against the petitioner, if within one year from the date of issuance of discharge certificate, if the respondents find any material particular in the declaration as false. In such circumstances, the respondents to presume as if the declaration was never made and the proceedings under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted.”
Judgment
The Bench passed the following orders:
- Impugned orders were quashed and set aside.
- The Declaration Forms filed by the petitioners were restored to file and were remanded to the respondent no.3 for taking a fresh decision on these two declaration forms filed by the petitioner by treating the same as valid declarations under the ‘voluntary disclosure’ category and thereafter grant the admissible relief to the petitioner. The respondents shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by issuing seven days clear notice before the date of proposed hearing. The petitioner shall remain present at the time of hearing before the respondent no.3, without fail. The respondent no.3 shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with the law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this judgment. The order that would be passed by the respondent no.3, shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing such order.
- It was made clear that the respondents are empowered to take action under Section 129(2)(c) of the said Scheme, if within a period of one year of issuance of the discharge certificate against the petitioner, the respondent no.3 finds that the material particulars furnished in the declaration filed by the petitioner are found to be false.
Case Name: UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2022
Bench: Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Justice S.M. Modak
Decided on: 31st January 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments