B G Engineering Company vs. The Union Of INDIA And 9 Ors

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was entitled to a legitimate benefit under the SVLDRS Scheme and that the benefit had been allowed by the respondent GST Department. However, due to the inadvertent overpayment of 40 paisa, the entire process failed, and the benefit was refused. The Court noted that the GST Department's portal had closed in the meantime. To meet the ends of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, detailing the facts and requesting acceptance of their payment under the SVLDRS Scheme. The Principal Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks of receiving the representation. Until such an order is passed, no coercive action, including the freezing of the petitioner's bank account, is to be taken against the petitioner. This interim protection is conditional on the petitioner submitting the representation within fifteen days from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, B G Engineering Company, sought to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS Scheme) for certain GST disputes. The petitioner deposited a cheque for Rs. 1,25,629.60/-. However, the respondent GST authorities returned the cheque because the correct amount payable under the scheme was Rs. 1,25,629.20/-, meaning the petitioner had paid 40 paisa more. Consequently, the petitioner could not avail the SVLDRS Scheme benefit as the GST authorities' portal for such applications had closed. The petitioner also faced coercive action, including the freezing of their bank account with United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank). The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these actions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite a minor discrepancy in the deposited amount? 2. Whether the GST authorities acted appropriately in refusing the benefit and initiating coercive action against the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the discrepancy of 40 paisa was an inadvertent error and that they should be allowed to avail the legitimate benefit under the SVLDRS Scheme. They also highlighted the coercive action taken against them, including the freezing of their bank account, as a consequence of the failed SVLDRS application. The respondent GST authorities' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their actions of returning the cheque and freezing the account indicate their stance that the petitioner did not comply with the scheme's requirements.