M/S Acme Trade And Aencies vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court set aside the impugned orders dated December 7, 2019, and January 14, 2020. The matter was remanded back to the respondent authorities for reconsideration of the application/declaration furnished by the petitioner, specifically ARN LD1401200000978, filed on January 14, 2020. The authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and the rules framed thereunder. The Court further directed that if the authorities required a fresh declaration, they should permit the petitioner to file one. The respondents were given a period of 2 months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order to pass the required orders. The Court found merit in the submission that the matter should be disposed of by remanding it back to the authorities for fresh consideration, aligning with a previous order of a Co-ordinate Bench.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Acme Trade and Agencies, was subjected to a demand of service tax, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati, via an order dated March 26, 2013. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' was introduced. The petitioner applied under this scheme on December 7, 2019, but inadvertently left the 'Penalty amount' blank. A rectified application was filed on January 14, 2020, declaring the penalty. However, the respondent authorities rejected the first declaration on December 7, 2019, for 'Incorrect Declaration' and the second on January 14, 2020, stating that a previous application on the same issue had already been disposed of. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these rejections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's initial declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, on the ground of 'Incorrect Declaration' was justified, considering the subsequent filing of a rectified application? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the Scheme's rules). 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's rectified declaration, on the basis that a prior application on the same issue was disposed of, was appropriate, especially when the initial rejection was for an alleged incorrect declaration? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejections were erroneous, particularly after they attempted to rectify the initial oversight by filing a corrected declaration. They relied on the spirit of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme to resolve legacy disputes. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent authorities argued that the initial declaration was incorrect and that the subsequent declaration could not be accepted as the issue had already been dealt with. The respondent's counsel referred to a similar issue decided by a Co-ordinate Bench in WP (C) No. 2149/2020 (Assam Cricket Association Vs. The Union of India & 4 Ors.), suggesting a remand for fresh consideration.