JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule.

2. Mr. Ram Ochani, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Swapnil Bangur, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 waives service of notice. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the rejection Order dated 30th December 2019, rejecting Form SVLDRS-1 and also seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to accept the application Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner and to issue discharge certificate. The Petitioner also seeks an opportunity to put forth his case/submissions and for a direction that, a reasoned Order be passed thereafter.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 had quantified the amount of service tax payable by the Petitioner for the year 2013-2014 amounting to Rs. 30,80,020/- by a letter/email dated 24th January 2019. By another letter/email dated 13th February 2019, the Respondent No. 3 quantified the amount of service tax payable amounting to Rs. 50,74,259.4/- The Respondent No. 3 called upon the Petitioner to submit documents by the said letters/emails dated 24th January 2019, 13th February 2019 and 11th April 2019. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner vide their letters dated 23rd April 2019 and 6th May 2019 sought time to submit the required documents. On 27th May 2019 the Petitioner submitted the required documents.

5. The Petitioner also quantified the amount for the financial year 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016 and 1st April 2016 to 30th June 2017. The Central Government introduced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short “SVS Scheme 2019”). On 30th December 2019 the Petitioner filed the electronic declarations in Form No. SVLDRS-1 for the period of 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 (upto June 2017). The Petitioner declared various amounts as amount of tax due for the said period. The Respondent No. 5 however rejected the said application by Order/e-mail dated 24th February 2020, 26th February 2020 and 28th February 2020 without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner. The application was rejected on the ground “Nil returned filed online, Investigation under process/data provided in application does not match with record.”

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on 1st December 2020 for the period 2013-2014 (October-March) to 2017-2018 (upto June 2017) proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 87,79,971/- along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 70, 77(1) (d), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On 1st December 2020 the Petitioner requested the Respondent No. 5 to grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to prove their eligibility under SVS 2019 and also to allow them to rectify declaration filed under the said Scheme. There was no response to the said request made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner thus filed this Petition.

7. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the applications made by the Petitioner and the Orders passed by the Respondent No. 5. He also invited our attention to the averments made by the Respondent No. 5 in paragraph No. 18 of the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 18th December 2021 and more specifically the contention of the Respondent No. 5 that “the Petitioner was not eligible to file the declaration under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 and thus question of granting any personal hearing is not warranted in the present case” and submits that the said contention is totally erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions.

8. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Thought Blurb vs. Union of India, (2020) TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST [decided on 27.10.2020]. He submits that similar view has been taken by this Court in catena of decisi