M/S Bhasan Ch. Dey And Co. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Designated Committee needed to consider the petitioner's claim as submitted in their representation dated February 25, 2020. The Court directed the Members of the Designated Committee to rectify the defects in the SVLDRS-3 Form uploaded by the Department. The reasoning was based on the agreement between both counsels and the need to ensure the petitioner received the full benefit to which they were entitled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The correction was ordered to be completed within two working days, given that the Scheme's benefits were set to expire on June 30, 2020. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bhasan Ch. Dey and Co., filed a writ petition challenging Form No. SVLDRS-3 issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner contended that a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,17,552/- made towards service tax demand was not deducted or considered when the SVLDRS-3 Form was generated. This omission resulted in the petitioner not receiving the full benefit available under the Scheme. Following the upload of the SVLDRS-3 Form, the petitioner submitted a representation on February 25, 2020, highlighting this discrepancy. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India, acknowledged the issue and indicated that the department would process a rectification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, erred in not deducting the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 2,17,552/- made by the petitioner while issuing Form No. SVLDRS-3, thereby reducing the benefit available to the petitioner under the Scheme? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit amount was not reflected in the SVLDRS-3 Form, leading to a reduction in the benefits they were entitled to under the Scheme. They relied on the fact that they had made the deposit and subsequently represented the issue to the authorities. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Assistant Solicitor General, submitted that they had received instructions to process the rectification of the defect and agreed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to that effect.