Addl. Com. Cen. Excise And Service Tax, Bolpur Comm. vs. Reckitt Benckiser (INDIA) P. LTD. And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., applied for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVS Scheme). Their application was rejected on February 5, 2020, by the Designated Committee. The stated reason for rejection was the incorrect mention of the order-in-original number, with the appeal number being provided instead. The petitioner had filed their application on December 17, 2019, which was within the extended deadline of January 15, 2020. The revenue argued that there was no provision for rectification or appeal against the Designated Committee's decision. The High Court initially directed the revenue to disclose the appropriate authority for grievances, which led to further communications and appeals. The present appeals and writ petition concern the eligibility of the assessee under the SVS Scheme and the rejection of their application.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was based on a technicality and that the spirit of the scheme should not be defeated. The Court found that the deadline of January 15, 2020, was for filing applications, not for the Designated Committee to cease processing them. Therefore, the revenue's attempt to non-suit the assessee based on this date was rejected. The Court noted that several High Courts have issued directions to reconsider applications rejected on technical grounds, emphasizing that technicalities should not disentitle an assessee from having their declaration considered on merits. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the revenue, stating they were not applicable to the facts of this case as they dealt with policy withdrawal and not the processing of applications under a resolution scheme. The Court set aside the rejection order dated February 5, 2020, and directed the Designated Authority to permit the assessee to rectify the order-in-original number and date, either manually or virtually, and to decide the application on merits. The Designated Authority was requested to finalize the declaration expeditiously, preferably within six months. Consequently, the appeals and the writ petition were disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Designated Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, on the ground of incorrect mention of the order-in-original number, when the correct appeal number was provided and the application was filed within the stipulated time frame, thereby turning on Section 127 of the Scheme and relevant notifications. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejection was based on a technicality and that the spirit of the scheme should not be defeated. They argued that the rejection notice was issued after the deadline for filing applications, and the revenue's attempt to use the January 15, 2020 deadline to preclude their case should fail as it pertains only to filing, not processing. They relied on various High Court decisions where similar technical rejections were set aside. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the scheme is a policy decision and once it is over, the court cannot direct its reopening. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in UOI vs. Unicorn Industries and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited vs. Indian Railway Major and Minor Caterers Association & Ors. to support the argument that policy decisions should not be interfered with and that the scheme, once concluded, cannot be reopened. They also argued that there is no provision for appeal against the Designated Committee's decision.