M/S Bagga Logistic Private Limited And Another vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Bagga Logistic Private Limited and another, challenged two notices dated October 29, 2021, and December 27, 2021, issued by the Central GST Authorities for recovery of an amount. The petitioners claimed they had deposited the disputed amount under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) within the stipulated time. However, due to a bank error, the amount was debited from their account and subsequently credited back, preventing them from receiving the benefit of the SVLDRS. The petitioners had made a representation on July 2, 2020, regarding this issue, which remained unconsidered. The impugned recovery notices were issued during the pendency of this representation.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated July 2, 2020. This consideration must be in accordance with the law, and the respondent is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of the judgment. Until the representation is disposed of, the respondent is directed to maintain the status quo concerning the impugned notices dated October 29, 2021, and December 27, 2021. The further proceedings related to these recovery notices will be contingent upon the outcome of the representation. The Court noted that since the writ petition was disposed of at the 'Motion' stage without calling for affidavits, the allegations in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. No specific finding was made on the merits of the SVLDRS claim or the bank's error.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the SVLDRS Scheme despite the bank's error in crediting back the deposited amount? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that they had fulfilled their obligation by depositing the amount under the SVLDRS Scheme. They argued that the subsequent crediting back of the amount was due to a fault of the bank, not their own, and therefore, they should not be denied the benefits of the scheme. They also highlighted that their representation dated July 2, 2020, addressing this issue, was pending and that the recovery notices were issued during this pendency. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India & ors.) regarding the merits of the petitioners' claim or the SVLDRS Scheme. The respondents were represented, but their submissions on the core issues are not detailed in the provided text.