Sunil Jay Prakash Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Respondents were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found the Respondents' stand that a personal hearing was not warranted because the Petitioner was ineligible to file the declaration to be "totally absurd and without application of mind." The Court reasoned that the eligibility of the Petitioner to file the declaration was itself an issue that could only be considered after granting a personal hearing. The Court relied on the principles of law laid down in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Saksham Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others. The Court directed that the impugned orders rejecting the applications be quashed and set aside, and the applications be restored to file. Respondent No. 5 was directed to consider the applications on their merits after granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner and passing a fresh reasoned order within two months of the hearing. The Court also provided directions regarding notice for the hearing, appearance of the Petitioner, communication of the fresh order, and a period of two weeks for the Petitioner to take action if the order was adverse.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sunil Jay Prakash Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme 2019). The Petitioner had filed electronic declarations in Form SVLDRS-1 for the periods 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 (up to June 2017). The Designated Committee (Respondent No. 5) rejected these applications by orders dated 24th, 26th, and 28th February 2020, citing reasons such as "Nil returned filed online, Investigation under process / data provided in application does not match with record." The Petitioner contended that his tax liability for 2013-2014 was quantified by Respondent No. 3, and he sought time to submit documents, which he later did. The Petitioner also quantified amounts for other periods and filed the SVLDRS-1 declarations. The rejection orders were passed without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on 1st December 2020 for the period 2013-2014 to 2017-2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection orders passed by Respondent No. 5 rejecting the Petitioner's SVLDRS-1 applications were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, given the dispute regarding the quantification of tax liability as on 30th June 2019, as contemplated under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent's contention that a personal hearing was not warranted because the Petitioner was ineligible to file the declaration was erroneous and contrary to this Court's previous decisions. The Petitioner relied on the judgment in Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and other similar judgments. The Petitioner asserted that his tax liability was already quantified by Respondent No. 3, and these averments were not disputed by the Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Reply. Respondents' arguments: The Respondents argued that the issuance of a show cause notice in September 2020 indicated that the tax liability was not quantified as of 30th June 2019, making the Petitioner ineligible for the Scheme. Therefore, no purpose would have been served by granting a personal hearing.