M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the Principal Commissioner in the Office of the Central GST at Guwahati must give due consideration to the representation dated 03.03.2020 submitted by the petitioner, M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's grievance was limited to the non-consideration of their representation concerning an incorrect entry in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 form. As the GST department's counsel agreed to this course of action, the Court directed the Principal Commissioner to pass a reasoned order on the representation. This order is to be passed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Court's order, and if necessary, a hearing may be provided to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the incorrect entry itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of considering the petitioner's representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), an assessee under Chapter-5 of the Finance Act, 1994, sought to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. While filing the proposal in Form SVLDRS-1, BSNL entered an incorrect amount of Rs. 84,56,508/- in the 'details of duty' column, when the correct figure should have been Rs. 27,56,508/-. This erroneous entry led to adverse consequences for the petitioner. Consequently, BSNL submitted a representation dated 03.03.2020 to the Principal Commissioner, Central GST, Guwahati. The present writ petition was filed due to the alleged lack of due consideration of this representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner, Central GST, Guwahati, is obligated to consider the representation dated 03.03.2020 submitted by the petitioner, M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, regarding an incorrect entry in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 form? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their representation, highlighting a significant discrepancy in the duty amount declared in Form SVLDRS-1, had not received adequate consideration. They sought a directive for the authorities to examine their representation. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the GST department agreed with the limited grievance raised by the petitioner and consented to the disposal of the petition with a direction to the Principal Commissioner to consider the representation.