Court overturns rejection of petitioner's Sabka Vishwas Scheme application, orders reconsideration within 2 months.

The court set aside the rejection of a petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, finding it arbitrary and contrary to the scheme's purpose. The rejection was deemed unjust as a similar application was accepted. The court directed authorities to reconsider the application, following scheme provisions and rules, allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity for relief. The respondents were instructed to pass appropriate orders within two months and permit the petitioner to file a fresh declaration if necessary. The writ petition was disposed of with emphasis on adherence to scheme guidelines.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Rejection of application under SVLDRS-1.
3. Violation of rules in implementing the scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, registered under the Finance Act, 1994, declared service tax liabilities but failed to deposit them. They participated in the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, seeking relief. The scheme aimed to settle pending Central Excise and Service Tax matters, offering 40%-70% relief on tax dues, along with waiver of interest, penalty, and prosecution. The petitioners filed declarations under the scheme, but one was rejected for "Incorrect Declaration with respect to pre-deposit." The court noted a similar case where the matter was remanded back for reconsideration by the authorities.

2. The rejection of one application while accepting another by the petitioners was challenged as arbitrary and unjust, contrary to the scheme's purpose. The petitioners argued that both applications were similar and should have been treated equally. The court agreed with the petitioners and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration. The respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders within two months and allow the petitioners to file a fresh declaration if required.

3. The petitioners contended that the rejection of their application violated the rules framed for implementing the scheme. The court, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, found merit in the petitioners' claim and directed the authorities to follow the scheme's provisions and rules while reconsidering the application. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing adherence to the scheme's guidelines and ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioners to be heard and considered for relief under the scheme.

---