Deepak Kumar Agarwal vs. The Designated Committee Constituted U/S 126 Of Finance Act , 2019 And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Mr. Deepak Kumar Agarwal, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated December 15, 2022, which directed him to submit a representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs regarding the rejection of his application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The rejection was based on the ground that the appellant was a co-noticee and the main applicant, M/s. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, had not yet settled their case under the SVLDRS. However, it was established that M/s. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited had indeed applied, their application was accepted, and SVLDRS-4 was issued on August 12, 2020. Subsequently, an appeal pending before the Commissioner of Appeal was deemed withdrawn. The appellant's application under the scheme was rejected on November 4, 2020.

Held

The Court held that the reason for rejecting the appellant's application under the SVLDRS was factually incorrect and unsustainable. It was established that the main applicant, M/s. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, had applied under the scheme, and their application was accepted, resulting in the issuance of SVLDRS-4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order passed in the writ petition was set aside. The rejection of the appellant's application was also set aside, and the matter was remanded to the designated committee for a fresh decision. The Court directed the designated committee to comply with this direction expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of receiving the server copy of the order. The Court noted that the designated committee was empowered by the Board to process such matters as per the instruction dated March 17, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the appellant’s application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was sustainable, given that the main applicant, M/s. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Limited, had their application accepted and settled under the scheme. The appellant argued that the reason for rejection was factually incorrect as the main applicant's case was settled. He relied on Instruction No. 01/2021-CX dated March 17, 2021, which clarified that manual processing of declarations could be done by designated committees under certain conditions. The appellant contended that since the main applicant's application was accepted and processed, his own application should also be processed. The revenue/respondents did not record any specific arguments against the appellant's contentions.