The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria and key legal provisions under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, to determine the petitioner's entitlement to apply under the scheme.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. J.B. Mishra, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of Respondents. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the notice/statement dated 06.03.2020 issued by the Designated Committee in form SVLDRS-3 and seeks an order and direction to allow/accept the Application/Declaration No. LD-1501200005280 filed by the Petitioner.

3. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 03-07/08/2015 to the Petitioner for refunding the Service tax amounting to Rs. 49,96,083/- and show-cause as to why the action proposed against the Petitioner shall not be taken. The Commissioner of Central Excise passed an Order in Original on 29.03.2017 against the Petitioner. On 13.07.2018, the Petitioner filed an application for rectification of the alleged mistake apparent from the records according to the Petitioner under Section 74 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. On 20.02.2019, the authority rejected the said application for rectification. On 08.04.2019, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. On 01.09.2019, the Central Government issued a Notification notifying the scheme named Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred as the said Scheme).

5. On 15.01.2020, the Petitioner filed an Application/ Declaration under Section 125 of the said Scheme. The Petitioner in the said form SVLDRS-2 filed the said declaration under “Litigation Category.” On 08.02.2020, the Petitioner received a notice dated 07.02.2020 in form SVLDRS-2 stating that the case of the Petitioner was confirmed under “Arrears Category.” On 13.02.2020, the Petitioner submitted form SVLDRS-2A explaining the reason why the said case could not be treated as a case under ‘arrears category’ and why it should be treated as ‘litigation case’ instead.

6. On 06.03.2020, the Designated Committee issued a notice/statement in form SVLDRS-3 requiring the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 13,18,433.20/-. On 27.11.2020, the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Central Tax, Pune dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act. On 20.04.2021, the Petitioner filed this petition inter-alia impugning the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Designated Committee raising the demand for Rs. 13,18,433.20/- against the Petitioner.

7. Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Show-Cause Notice, the Order in Original passed by the Assessment Officer, the application for rectification filed by his client under Section 74 of the Finance Act, the Order passed by the Assessing Officer refusing to rectify alleged mistake, the declaration filed by the Petitioner in SVLDRS-1 and various correspondences annexed to the petition.

8. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Order passed by the Designated Committee on 06.03.2020 rejecting the said application under the ‘Litigation Category’ and confirming the said application under ‘Arrears Category’. He invited our attention to the definition of ‘Order’ under Section 121 (o) of the said Scheme. He also invited our attention to the definition of ‘Appellate Forum’ under Section 121 (f) and the definition of ‘amount in arrears’ under Section 121 (c). It is submitted that the definition of ‘Order’ under Section 121 (o) does not refer only an Order in original passed by the Authority but would also mean and include the order passed on the application for rectification filed by the Petitioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994.

9. It is submitted that the ‘Appellate Forum’ defined under Section 121 (f) would also include the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act against the Order of the assessing Offi