The court mandated that the Designated Committee must provide a fair hearing and properly consider relevant circulars when determining the admissibility of declarations under the legacy dispute resolution scheme.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM No.29545/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 10236/2022 & CM No.29544/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

2.1. Mr Aditya Singla accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Likewise, Mr Adarsh Kumar Gupta accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/Union of India (UOI).

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:

"(A) Declare the Petitioner as eligible for the benefits of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and/or

(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to re-consider the declaration filed by the petitioner as per law and following the principles of natural justice.

(C) Declare the Designated Committee Constituted under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 is not empowered to adjudicate upon the admissibility of declaration beyond Section 122 and Section 125 of the Finance Act.

(D) Declare that interest for delayed payment of Service Tax merits waiver, under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even if entire Service Tax was paid prior to 30th June, 2019.

(F) Cost of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner"

5. Briefly, the grievance of the petitioner is that the declaration filed by it under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereafter referred to as "2019 Scheme"] was rejected, without according any opportunity of hearing.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had delayed the payment of service tax for the period spanning between 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 (up to June 2018).

6.1. Consequently, upon notice being issued in that behalf, the petitioner deposited the amount payable towards service tax. Since there was a delay in the deposit of the amount towards service tax, liability towards interest arose qua the petitioner.

6.2. The letter dated 29.05.2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Vasant Kunj Division, pegged the interest payable by the petitioner at Rs.42,06,417/-.

7.1. It is towards the interest liability amounting to Rs.42,06,417/-, that a declaration under the 2019 Scheme was filed by the petitioner, in form SVLDRS-1, on 09.01.2020.

7.2. Respondent no.3, i.e., the Designated Committee, has admittedly, rejected the aforesaid declaration. A communication in that behalf, was received by the petitioner via e-mail, on 05.03.2020.

7.3. The petitioner appears to have submitted representations thereafter, on 04.06.2020 and 03.12.2021.

8. Mr Bharat Bhushan Gupta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that since the tax liability had been defrayed before 30.06.2019, if the declaration is accepted by respondent no.3/Designated Committee, then the entire liability towards interest will get effaced.

8.1. In support of this plea, Mr Bhushan relies upon the circulars dated 25.09.2019 and 29.10.2019.

9. On being queried, Mr Bhushan says that, notwithstanding the reliefs sought, the petitioner will be quite satisfied, if the matter is remitted to respondent no.3/Designated Committee for a fresh consideration, with an opportunity of hearing.

9.1. Mr Gupta says that the instant writ petition can be treated as a representation of the petitioner by respondent no.3/Designated Committee.

10. Mr Singla says that the petitioner is not entitle