Bsa Citi Courier PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi West & Anr.

Held

The Court found that the impugned communication dated March 5, 2020, was issued by the respondents without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without considering the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the communication and directed Respondent No. 2 to provide a hearing to the petitioner on July 9, 2020. The Court explicitly left all rights and contentions of the parties open for further proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory scheme's benefits cannot be denied without due process, and the interpretation of eligibility criteria must align with the scheme's intent, particularly regarding the distinction between quantification and communication dates. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned communication and grant a hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated March 5, 2020, issued by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi West & Anr. This communication rejected the petitioner's declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019, specifically for the waiver of interest from April 2015 to June 2017. The rejection was based on the ground that the date of communication declared (September 5, 2019) was beyond the cut-off date of June 30, 2019, making the application ineligible under Section 125(1)(e) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner contended that the quantification of the amount in dispute occurred in March 2019, prior to the cut-off date, and that the respondents had misinterpreted the scheme's provisions, which refer to quantification, not communication date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 is ineligible due to the communication date being after the cut-off date, contrary to the scheme's requirement of quantification on or before June 30, 2019 (Section 125(1)(e) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the alleged reason for rejection was factually incorrect, as the amount was quantified in March 2019, prior to the June 30, 2019 cut-off date. They contended that the respondents had wilfully misinterpreted Section 125(1)(e) by focusing on the communication date rather than the quantification date. The petitioner also highlighted a letter dated September 5, 2019, from the Assistant Commissioner, which invited them to avail the scheme, suggesting their eligibility. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the quantification in this case was done after June 30, 2019, and was communicated to the petitioner for the first time on September 5, 2019. They argued that the petitioner could not rely on internal correspondence between departments to prove earlier quantification.