Fair hearing under Sabka Vishwas Scheme required before adverse processing; matter sent back for fresh consideration after lockdown-related lapse.

A taxpayer's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was challenged on the ground that Form SVLDRS-3 had been issued without a fair and effective personal hearing, particularly when the hearing date fell during the lockdown period. The Gujarat High Court treated the absence of a meaningful opportunity to explain the matter in person as a denial of fair hearing and quashed the impugned form. It declined to decide the substantive eligibility dispute under the Scheme and directed the designated authority to rehear the matter, verify the facts, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declarant was denied a fair opportunity of hearing before issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The declaration under the Scheme was rejected on the ground that the case involved confiscation and redemption fine, while the petitioner asserted that the requisite payments had already been made and that the scheduled personal hearing fell during the period of complete lockdown. The record showed that the personal hearing was fixed and the impugned form was issued without the petitioner being afforded an effective opportunity to explain the matter in person. In view of the circumstances prevailing during lockdown, the absence of a meaningful hearing was treated as a denial of fair opportunity. The Court also declined to examine the substantive merits of the eligibility dispute under the Scheme and considered it appropriate that the designated authority first verify the facts after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the ground of denial of fair hearing, and the impugned Form SVLDRS-3 was quashed with a direction to the designated committee to rehear the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was not finally decided on the merits of Scheme eligibility and was sent back for reconsideration after affording a proper personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision affecting a taxpayer's entitlement under a dispute resolution scheme cannot be sustained where the taxpayer is not afforded a fair and effective opportunity of hearing, particularly when the hearing is fixed during an extraordinary lockdown situation.

---