Proloy Seal And Anr. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously disposed of a similar writ petition by remanding the matter back to the concerned authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioners agreed with this approach. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure-K) which rejected the petitioner's SVLDRS 2019 declaration. The matter was remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the application/declaration furnished by the petitioner (ARN LD2112190002384 dated 21.12.2019) and pass appropriate orders in terms of the scheme and its rules. The authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to file a fresh declaration if required. The respondent authorities were given a period of 2 months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order to pass the required order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioners, registered under the Finance Act, 1994, declared service tax liabilities for various periods but failed to deposit the full amounts. For the period Oct'14 to Mar'15, Rs. 6,57,975/- was declared but not deposited. For Apr'15 to Sept'16, Rs. 70,05,287/- was declared but not paid. The petitioners later deposited Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 56,98,568/- but interest on delayed payment remained unpaid. They filed two declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS 2019). One declaration (ARN LD1501200008180) was accepted, but the other (ARN LD2112190002384) was rejected by the Designated Committee for "Incorrect Declaration with respect to pre-deposit". The petitioners argued that both applications were similar and the rejection of one was arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's SVLDRS 2019 declaration (ARN LD2112190002384) on the ground of "Incorrect Declaration with respect to pre-deposit" was arbitrary and unjust, especially when a similar declaration (ARN LD1501200008180) was accepted. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both applications were filed on the same footing and that the differential treatment by the respondent authorities was arbitrary and in violation of the purpose of the SVLDRS 2019 scheme. They argued that the rejection was contrary to the scheme's provisions and the rules framed thereunder, and that they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's arguments: The respondent submitted that a Coordinate Bench had already disposed of a similar writ petition (WP(C) No. 2149/2020, Assam Cricket Association Vs. The Union of India & 4 Ors.) by remanding the matter back to the authorities. They agreed that the present petition could be disposed of in a similar manner.