Messrs. Versatech Products And Ors vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Versatech Products and its partners, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of 15 applications made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The rejection of two applications by the firm was based on the non-payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. Nine other applications by the firm were rejected on the grounds that no inquiry or investigation was pending as of June 30, 2019, and that prior investigations had already resulted in Orders-In-Original pending before the Court. Four applications by the partners were rejected because the firm's applications had been rejected. The petitioners argued that the rejection was illegal and sought relief from the Bombay High Court.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of two applications by Petitioner No.1-Firm on the ground of non-payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs was illegal. The Court reasoned that the respondents had not quantified or intimated the redemption fine to the petitioner, which is a prerequisite for payment under the SVLDR Scheme. The rejection of nine applications by the firm, based on the absence of pending inquiries/investigations as of June 30, 2019, was also quashed and set aside. The Court found that the disqualification under Section 125(1)(e) of the SVLDR Scheme was not applicable to the petitioners' case, aligning with its reasoning in Writ Petition No. 7653 of 2021. Consequently, the rejection of the four applications made by the partners, which was predicated on the rejection of the firm's applications, was also deemed invalid. The Court directed the respondents to accept all applications, intimate the payable amounts, and issue the final certificates under the SVLDR Scheme.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of applications for non-payment of redemption fine, where the amount of fine was not quantified or intimated, is legal under the SVLDR Scheme? 2. Whether the rejection of applications based on the ground that no inquiry/investigation was pending as of June 30, 2019, is valid when prior investigations had concluded with Orders-In-Original, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the SVLDR Scheme? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners contended that the rejection of applications for non-payment of a redemption fine was illegal as the amount was neither quantified nor intimated to them. They argued that the SVLDR Scheme required the authorities to intimate the payable amount. Regarding the second issue, they argued that the disqualification under Section 125(1)(e) was not applicable to their case, as the scheme intended to resolve legacy disputes. They relied on submissions made in a connected Writ Petition No. 7653 of 2021. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents' submissions were adopted from Writ Petition No. 7653 of 2021. The rejection of the applications was based on the stated grounds in the judgment.