M/S.Jindal Steel And Power LTD. vs. Designated Committee, Central GST And Custom Rourkela

Held

The Court, considering the limited nature of the petitioner's prayer and the pendency of their representation before the opposite party No.1 (the Designated Committee), chose not to enter into the merits of the claims made in the writ petition. Instead, the Court directed the opposite party No.1 to dispose of the petitioner's representation, which was stated to be pending, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of an authenticated copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the ongoing COVID-19 lockdown and permitted the use of soft copies of the order. No specific findings were made on the legality of SVLDRS-3 or the refund claim, as these were contingent on the disposal of the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, challenged the legality and propriety of Form No. SVLDRS-3 issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The petitioner also sought the reissuance of this form and SVLDRS-4, along with a refund of excess amounts paid in compliance with the original SVLDRS-3. A representation dated February 7, 2020, was filed by the petitioner with the Designated Committee constituted under the SVLDR Scheme, which remained pending. The petitioner's primary prayer was for a direction for the expeditious disposal of this pending representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of Form No. SVLDRS-3, purportedly under Rule 6(2) of the SVLDR Scheme and Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, was legal and proper, and whether it should be reissued along with SVLDRS-4. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid in compliance with the SVLDRS-3. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the SVLDRS-3 issued was illegal and improper and sought its reissuance. They also prayed for the refund of excess amounts paid. The core of their request was for the expeditious disposal of their pending representation dated February 7, 2020, filed with the Designated Committee. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST & Customs-opposite parties. The court's decision was based on the limited nature of the petitioner's prayer regarding the pending representation.