M/S Obel Builders vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Obel Builders, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme) dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure-A). The petitioner contended that a sum of Rs. 18,83,107/- paid under protest in relation to the impugned demand proceedings was not considered by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the impugned order, passed without considering their reply and payment, should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's specific contention regarding the payment of Rs. 18,83,107/- had not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. The Court found this failure to consider a crucial aspect of the petitioner's case to be a ground for setting aside the order. The Court relied on previous judgments in similar circumstances, specifically citing Mars Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme and H M Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas (LDRS), where similar orders were set aside and matters remitted. The ratio decidendi is that failure to consider material submissions and payments made by an assessee under a dispute resolution scheme vitiates the order passed by the designated authority, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2019, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee, while passing the order dated 02.03.2020 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), failed to consider the petitioner's submission regarding the payment of Rs. 18,83,107/- made under protest. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is liable to be quashed because the respondents failed to consider their reply and the payment of Rs. 18,83,107/-. They relied on their submissions made to the concerned authorities and the payment details. The petitioner sought for the matter to be remitted back for reconsideration. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.