Industrial Engineers And Distributors PVT.LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance Dept Of Revenue And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Industrial Engineers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The Respondents are the Union of India and other revenue authorities. The petition concerns the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The Petitioner sought relief concerning their participation in this scheme. The Court had previously ordered the presence of Dr. Nirmal Kumar Soren, Principal Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Mumbai South. An affidavit explaining the delay in filing a reply was submitted and accepted by the Court. The Respondent's counsel stated that Form-4 under the SVLDR Scheme had been issued to the Petitioner, similar to another entity, L&T. A copy of the SVLDRS-4 issued to the Petitioner was presented and taken on record.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner's counsel indicated that the petition could be disposed of if the Petitioner did not have contrary instructions after receiving the SVLDRS-4. The Respondent's counsel confirmed that Form-4 under the SVLDR Scheme had been issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's counsel acknowledged receipt of a copy of the same. Based on these submissions, the Court found that the Petitioner was amenable to the disposal of the petition. The Court accepted the explanation for the delay in filing the reply affidavit. The ratio decidendi is that when a party to a writ petition indicates willingness to have the matter disposed of based on subsequent developments, and those developments are confirmed by the opposing party and accepted by the petitioner's counsel, the Court will proceed to dispose of the petition accordingly. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of Form-4 under the SVLDR Scheme to the Petitioner is a satisfactory resolution of the dispute, thereby warranting disposal of the writ petition? The Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Shah, stated that subject to receiving instructions from his client, the petition could be disposed of upon receiving the SVLDRS-4. This implies the Petitioner's acceptance of the issuance of Form-4 as a resolution. The Respondents, through Mr. Mishra, contended that Form-4 has indeed been issued to the Petitioner, fulfilling a procedural step under the SVLDR Scheme. The Respondents relied on the fact of issuance of Form-4 as evidence of progress and potential resolution under the scheme. No specific provisions were explicitly debated in the context of this issue, but the underlying context is the SVLDR Scheme, 2019.