Industrial Personnel& Security Services PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods& Services Tax Delhi South &Anr. & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the impugned communications dated November 26, 2019, and December 19, 2019, were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea that an opportunity of hearing should have been provided before passing any adverse order, especially since the petitioner raised a contention regarding their eligibility to file an application under the Scheme despite the amount not being quantified or communicated. The Court reasoned that Section 127 of the Scheme clearly envisages an opportunity of hearing for the declarant by the Designated Committee. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned communications and directed the respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's application afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not decide on the ultimate eligibility of the petitioner for the Scheme, leaving the rights and contentions of both parties open.

Facts

The petitioner, Industrial Personnel & Security Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging two communications dated November 26, 2019, and December 19, 2019. These communications rejected the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The rejection was based on the ground that the amount in dispute had neither been quantified nor communicated to the assessee by the concerned investigative authority. The petitioner contended that these communications were issued without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to Section 127 of the Scheme. The petitioner also asserted eligibility for the Scheme based on Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned communications rejecting the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated by Section 127 of the Scheme? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection of their application was made without affording them any prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating Section 127 of the Scheme. They further contended that they were eligible to apply under the Scheme, citing Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8, even though the amount had not been quantified or communicated by the Department as of June 30, 2019. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or respondents.