Exercising discretion in a just, fair, and reasonable manner, complying with the principles of natural justice, is essential, especially when adverse civil consequences are involved.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr. Ishaan Patkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the designated committee rejecting the declaration of the petitioner dated 25.12.2019 filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to reconsider the declaration of the petitioner dated 25.12.2019 and grant the relief(s) under the aforesaid scheme. Additional prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing of show cause cum demand notice dated 24.12.2020 issued by Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, Belapur Commissionerate.

3. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of supplying unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled manpower for security services, management services etc. Being a service provider, it was registered as such under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Central Government introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly "the scheme" hereinafter) vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 for settlement of legacy disputes pertaining to service tax and central excise providing for substantial reliefs to the declarants subject to eligibility.

5. In terms of the scheme, petitioner submitted declaration dated 25.12.2019 under the category of 'voluntary disclosure' covering the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 declaring service tax dues for the said period at Rs. 39,26,235.00

6. However, vide email dated 21.01.2020, the aforesaid declaration of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of ineligibility. Reason for rejection was mentioned as being ineligible under section 125(1)(f)(i) read with section 121(m) of the Finance (No. 2) Act , 2019.

7. When the petitioner inquired with the authorities the justification for such rejection, it was informed that because of letter dated 24.07.2019 which was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, CGST & CX, Belapur Commissionerate for the period 2015-16 declaration of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of ineligibility.

7.1. In so far letter dated 24.07.2019 is concerned, it is stated that upon comparison of the service tax return of the petitioner with its income tax return for the financial year 2015-16 certain differences were noticed in the figures for which petitioner was required to explain and also to submit the documents mentioned therein.

8. Petitioner submitted representation on 03.02.2020 before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Belapur Commissionerate explaining and contending that it cannot be treated as ineligible and requested the said authority to withdraw the rejection order and thereafter to accept the declaration filed by the petitioner. However, no decision was taken on the said representation.

9. Aggrieved, present writ petition came to be filed assailing rejection of declaration.

10. During pendency of the writ petition, Joint Commissioner of CGST & CX, Belapur Commissionerate issued show cause cum demand notice dated 24.12.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why service tax amounting to Rs. 54,40,259.00 for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June 2017) should not be paid along with interest and penalty.

10.1. By way of amendment, the above show cause cum demand notice has been brought on record and has also been impugned.

11. Responding to the notice issued by the court, respondents have filed their reply affidavit. Stand taken in the reply affidavit is that petitioner had filed declaration under the scheme on 25.12.2019 under the category of 'voluntary disclosure' declaring amount of service tax payable at Rs. 39,25,235.00. The declaration was rejected on 21.01.2020 as the petitioner was not eligible to file declaration under the category of 'volunt