M/S. Kassa Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The High Court allowed the intra-Court appeal, setting aside the order of the writ Court. The Court found that the appellant should be permitted to pursue their appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal, given that their application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, had been rejected. The Court reasoned that not restoring the appeal would amount to double jeopardy, as the appellant would be unable to pursue their original remedy after the scheme failed. The ratio decidendi is that if a dispute resolution scheme application is rejected, the assessee should be allowed to pursue their pending statutory appeal to avoid being subjected to repeated litigation for the same dispute. The Court directed the Commissioner of Appeal to restore the appeal (file no.V(Ch-68)XAP-92/Slg-Appeal/19-20/6557) to its file and decide it on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Kassa Industries, filed an intra-Court appeal challenging an order of the learned writ Court dated November 18, 2021. The writ petition had questioned the rejection of an application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, communicated via email on January 2, 2020. The writ Court dismissed the petition on two grounds: the scheme was no longer in vogue, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the petition. The appellant had sought withdrawal of a pending appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal, Siliguri CGST & CX, to pursue the dispute resolution scheme. However, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn only on March 5, 2020, after the scheme application had already been rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was no longer in vogue, thereby preventing the appellant from pursuing its remedy under the scheme or an alternative remedy. 2. Whether the learned writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the timeline of the scheme's rejection and the withdrawal of the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the rejection of their settlement application under the Sabka Viswas Scheme should not preclude them from pursuing their original appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal. They contended that if the settlement application was rejected, they should be allowed to proceed with their appeal to avoid double jeopardy. They relied on the principle that a party should not be vexed twice for the same issue. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or the Union of India in response to the appellant's contentions before the High Court.