M/S. Kiran Borewells vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the communication dated 24.10.2019, issued by respondent No. 2, was a unilateral decision taken without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that any order passed by a quasi-judicial authority that adversely affects the rights of parties must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present their explanation or reply. Consequently, Annexure-F dated 24.10.2019 was quashed, and the matter was restored to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2019 to present their submissions. Respondent No. 2 was instructed to re-examine the matter after affording a hearing to the petitioner and make a decision in accordance with the law expeditiously. All rights and contentions of both parties were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kiran Borewells, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 24.10.2019 issued by the Joint Commissioner (SVLRDS), respondent No. 2. This communication rejected the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019). The rejection was primarily based on the designated committee's observation that the tax dues were not quantified, as defined under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No. 2), 2019, because they had not been intimated. The petitioner contended that this decision was unilateral and violated principles of natural justice, as it failed to consider previous communications and the petitioner's efforts to pay the tax liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's SVLDRS, 2019 application by respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 24.10.2019, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No. 2), 2019? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the decision was unilateral and against the principles of natural justice. They highlighted that previous communications, including a show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 and letters dated 13.11.2018 and 29.01.2019, which indicated tax liability, interest, and penalty, and showed the petitioner's partial payment and request for time to clear the balance, were not considered by respondent No. 2. Revenue's arguments: The revenue's counsel attempted to justify the impugned order.