M/S.Balaji Steel Industry vs. Designated Committee

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Balaji Steel Industry, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had an adverse order of assessment dated 29.12.2014, directing payment of duty, penalty, and interest amounting to Rs. 2,14,885/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT on 24.03.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under the Sabka Viswas Scheme. The Designated Committee rejected the application on 04.08.2020, stating that the petitioner had not suffered any order of assessment and had not filed any appeal. The petitioner contended that this was contrary to the records, as an order of assessment and an appeal had indeed been filed.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was erroneous and contrary to the available records. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed suffered an order of assessment dated 29.12.2014, which levied a demand of Rs. 2,14,885/- towards duty, penalty, and interest. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an appeal against this order before the CESTAT on 24.03.2015. The Court expressed shock that the respondents filed a counter affidavit without considering these glaring facts. An Additional Commissioner, GST, Trichy, appeared before the Court and conceded that the counter affidavit should have been drafted differently, expressing regret. The Court accepted this explanation and set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the first respondent to accept the petitioner's Form SVLDRS-1 filed on 13.11.2019 and process it in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must meticulously examine records before rejecting applications under beneficial schemes, and misrepresentation or omission of crucial facts can lead to the quashing of such rejections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner had suffered an order of assessment and filed an appeal, thereby qualifying for the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019, under the pending litigation category, as per Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that an order of assessment was passed against them on 29.12.2014, demanding duty, penalty, and interest, and that they had subsequently filed an appeal before the CESTAT on 24.03.2015. They asserted that the rejection of their SVLDRS application was based on incorrect factual premises and was contrary to the records. Respondent's contention: The respondents reiterated the stand taken in the impugned order, which was that the petitioner had not suffered any order of assessment and had not filed any appeal, thus not meeting the eligibility criteria for the Scheme.