Mary Elizabeth vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST

Facts

The petitioner, Mary Elizabeth, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise to consider her representation dated 02.03.2026. The petitioner expressed her willingness to settle the issue under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) and requested that the principles of natural justice be strictly followed. The respondent authority was represented, and the learned Senior Standing Counsel indicated that the representation would be considered if all questions, including the petitioner's eligibility for the scheme, were left open for the authority to decide. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.

Held

The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2026. An opportunity of hearing must be granted to the petitioner, and the representation should be decided in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter. The exercise of considering the representation and deciding the matter is to be completed expeditiously, not later than three months from the receipt of the order's web copy. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer's representation for settlement under a legacy dispute resolution scheme, coupled with a willingness to comply with its terms, warrants consideration by the revenue authority, provided principles of natural justice are adhered to.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority is obligated to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026 for settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since she made a representation and is willing to settle the issue as per the SVLDRS, the respondent authority must consider her representation. Revenue's contention: The respondent submitted that the representation would be considered if all questions, including the eligibility of the petitioner for the SVLDRS, were left open for the authority to examine and decide.