M/S Riazuddin Ahmed And Co. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the Designated Committee should consider the petitioner's claim as submitted in their representation dated 24.02.2020. 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 receives the benefits to which they are entitled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The rectification was to be completed within two working days, given that the Scheme's benefits were set to expire on June 30, 2020. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to rectify the SVLDRS-3 Form.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Riazuddin Ahmed and Co., filed a writ petition challenging Form No. SVLDRS-3 issued by the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit of Rs. 1,54,537/- made by them was not deducted or considered when the SVLDRS-3 Form was generated. This omission resulted in a reduction of the benefits available to the petitioner under the Scheme. Following the generation of the SVLDRS-3 Form, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.02.2020 to the concerned authority highlighting this discrepancy. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India, indicated that the Department would process the rectification of the defect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee erred in not deducting the pre-deposit of Rs. 1,54,537/- made by the petitioner while issuing Form No. SVLDRS-3, thereby reducing the benefits available under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit made by them was not reflected in the SVLDRS-3 Form, leading to a denial of the full benefits under the Scheme. They relied on their representation dated 24.02.2020 to highlight the discrepancy. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through the learned ASGI, stated that they had received instructions from the Department to process the rectification of the defect and agreed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to that effect.