2022 (1) TMI 1350 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders rectification of technical error in Sabka Vishwas Scheme application, emphasizes fair consideration for assessee

Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur Commissionerate Versus Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors.

The court allowed the respondent assessee to rectify a minor technical error in their application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) ... Eligibility of the respondent assessee to be entitled for being considered under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 - only reason for rejection of the application of the appellant was that wrong particulars in respect of the order-in-original were uploaded while applying under the said scheme but the fact remains that the appellant furnished the necessary documents including the order-in-appeal as well as the order in original before the Designated Committee well before the last date for applying under the said scheme. HELD THAT:- In the facts of the instant case it was incumbent upon the Designated Committee to offer an opportunity to the appellant to rectify such technical error within a stipulated time. Since admittedly the order of rejection was communicated to the appellant after expiry of the last date stipulated under the said scheme for submission of the application and also that the relevant materials are available with the Designated Committee, this Court is of the considered view that the Designated Committee should be directed to consider the claim of the appellant as to the entitlement of the appellant to the benefits of the said scheme. In the case of M/s. Sobha Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. [2020 (10) TMI 208 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh had considered an identical issue and the order of rejection of the declaration filed in Form SVLDRS-1 was set aside and direction was issued to the designated authority to decide the application afresh. Identical direction was issued in the case of Vaishali Sharma vs. UOI & Anr. reported in [2020 (8) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the said decision the Court went a step further to observe that an opportunity of hearing must have been given to the assessee before rejecting the declaration. It is evidently clear that Central Board is alive of the situations faced by the assessee. Hence there would be no difficulty in extending relief to the assessee. In any event the correction to be made is trivial in nature, hence, technicalities should not come in the way of the assessee being disentitled for his declaration to be considered on merits. It is safely observed that several High Courts in the country have been issuing directions and the bottom line of all the directions and observations is that the spirit of the scheme should not be defeated on account of technicalities - the order of rejection dated 05.02.2020 requires to be set aside. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of the respondent assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVS Scheme).2. Rejection of the application due to incorrect details provided.3. Availability of rectification provisions under the SVS Scheme.4. The role and jurisdiction of the Designated Committee post the last date for application submission.5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.6. Relief to be granted to the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility of the Respondent Assessee under the SVS Scheme:The core issue revolves around the eligibility of the respondent assessee to be considered under the SVS Scheme. The application was rejected because the order-in-original number was incorrectly provided, with the order-in-appeal number being mentioned instead.2. Rejection of the Application Due to Incorrect Details Provided:The application submitted by the assessee was rejected via electronic communication dated 05.02.2020 due to the incorrect order-in-original number. The court noted that the rejection was based on a minor technical mistake, as the department was aware of the correct details.3. Availability of Rectification Provisions under the SVS Scheme:Section 127 of the SVS Scheme allows for the rectification of arithmetical or clerical errors within thirty days of issuing a statement indicating the amount payable. The court emphasized that the Designated Committee could have permitted the assessee to rectify the minor technical error, especially since the correct details were already provided to the department.4. The Role and Jurisdiction of the Designated Committee Post the Last Date for Application Submission:The court clarified that the Designated Committee does not become functus officio after the last date for application submission (15.01.2020). The committee retains jurisdiction to process applications filed within the stipulated time and to rectify errors as per Section 127. The rejection of the application on the ground of the last date was deemed inappropriate.5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:The court referred to several precedents where similar issues were considered. Notably, in Hitech Projects Private Limited vs. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court quashed the rejection and directed reconsideration. Similarly, in M/s. Sobha Limited vs. Union of India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the rejection and directed fresh consideration. These cases underscored that technicalities should not defeat the scheme's spirit.6. Relief to be Granted to the Assessee:Given the minor nature of the error and the spirit of the SVS Scheme, the court directed the Designated Committee to allow the assessee to rectify the error and reconsider the application on its merits. The rejection dated 05.02.2020 was set aside, and the Designated Committee was instructed to finalize the declaration within six months.Conclusion:The court emphasized that the SVS Scheme's spirit should not be defeated by technicalities. The Designated Committee was directed to permit rectification of the minor error and reconsider the application, ensuring that the assessee's declaration is processed on its merits. The appeals and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.