M/S Manan Iron vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manan Iron A Proprietorship Firm, along with M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd., received a show-cause notice on March 22, 2007, alleging clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of central excise duty. The petitioner subsequently filed an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The petitioner's application was rejected by the respondent authorities. The petitioner contends that the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme was already granted to M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd., another noticee in the same show-cause notice, and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to them. The respondents, in their return, acknowledge that the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme was extended to M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd. and stated that the petitioner could also avail this benefit.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner to prefer an application before the respondent authorities under the SVLDR Scheme at the earliest. The respondent authorities were directed to consider such an application expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the application. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning appears to stem from the acknowledgment by both parties that the petitioner could still avail the SVLDR Scheme, and the court's preference to allow the administrative process to take its course rather than adjudicating the entitlement directly. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory scheme allows for resolution of legacy disputes and a party seeks to avail it, and a co-party has benefited, the appropriate course is to direct the authorities to consider the application expeditiously, without pre-judging the merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, given that a co-noticee in the same show-cause notice has already received the benefit of the scheme? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd., who was also a noticee in the show-cause notice dated March 22, 2007, has been granted the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme, the respondent authorities should extend the same benefit to the petitioner. They relied on the fact that the scheme's benefit was already extended to a co-noticee. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme has indeed been extended to M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd. and that the petitioner can also avail this benefit. They did not present any counter-arguments against the petitioner's claim for the benefit.