Avenue Supermarkets LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Avenue Supermarkets Ltd., challenged the rejection of its application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Petitioner had a Centralized Service Tax Registration. In 2013, DGCEI seized documents, leading to a show cause notice in 2014 and an Order in Original in January 2019 by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Navi Mumbai, confirming a service tax demand. The Petitioner appealed this demand. The Petitioner filed a declaration under the SVLDRS-1 Scheme on October 1, 2019. The application was rejected with the remark that the Order in Original pertained to the Navi Mumbai Commissionerate, and the Petitioner was advised to apply accordingly. The Petitioner contended that its registration had shifted to Thane in 2016, and the SVLDRS-1 portal automatically selected Thane Commissionerate, with no option to change it to Navi Mumbai, despite the pending appeal originating from Navi Mumbai.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner was a victim of a lacuna in the software governing the SVLDR Scheme. The Petitioner's assertion that the SVLDRS-1 portal did not allow selection or change of the Commissionerate, automatically assigning Thane based on the registration number, went unanswered by the Respondents in their reply affidavit. The Court found no evidence presented by the Respondents to contradict this assertion. Consequently, the Court proceeded on the premise that the Petitioner could not have selected the Navi Mumbai Commissionerate. The Court found the Respondents' suggestion for the Petitioner to re-register at Navi Mumbai to be an unnecessary harassment, especially in the context of a scheme for settling legacy disputes. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the rejection of the Petitioner's declaration. The Respondents were directed to treat the application as properly instituted and decide it on its merits as per the law and the scheme's provisions within eight weeks. The Court explicitly stated it had not commented on the merits of the Petitioner's claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS-1) was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of selecting the incorrect Commissionerate, given the alleged technical lacuna in the online portal? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that with its registration shift to Thane, the SVLDRS-1 portal automatically selected Thane Commissionerate, and there was no option to change it to Navi Mumbai, where the original dispute arose. This technical issue led to the rejection, and the Respondents should have redirected the application. The Petitioner relied on its assertion that the portal had no option to change the Commissionerate. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents argued that the Petitioner was informed about selecting the incorrect Commissionerate (Navi Mumbai being the correct one) and had sufficient time (forty-one days) to rectify it. Therefore, the Petitioner was to blame for the rejection and the loss of the scheme's benefit. The Respondents did not rely on any specific provision or precedent.