2020 (10) TMI 208 - HC - Central Excise

Court allows petitioner's single declaration under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, sets aside rejection for insufficient filings.

M/s. Sobha Limited Versus Union of India And Another

The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme for filing only one declaration instead of four, as ... Rejection of Petitioner's declaration in form SVLDRS 1 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is seen in the present case that as on 30th June, 2019, the four SCNs were not pending. In fact, these had been adjudicated and one consolidated order was passed in the four SCNs by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise. Likewise, one consolidated order was passed by the Appellate Authority in the combined appeal. This has further led to one appeal being filed before the CESTAT. The Petitioner is, therefore justified in contending that in relation to the single pending appeal before the CESTAT one declaration is required to be filed even in terms of Rule 3 (2) of the SVLDRS Rules. The Court is, therefore, unable to appreciate why on a hyper-techincal ground that four separate declarations were not filed, the Petitioner's application under the SVLDRS should have been rejected. The Court finds merit in the plea of Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the above circumstances Section 13 (2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be invoked in terms of which the “words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa” - Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case the Petitioner's application ought not to have been rejected only on the ground that one declaration, and not four, was filed on 30th December, 2019. The impugned order dated 21st February, 2020 is hereby set aside - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Rejection of petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to filing only one declaration instead of four separate declarations.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to the failure to file four separate declarations as required by Rule 3(2) of the Sabka Viswas Rules. The petitioner had received four Show Cause Notices (SCNs) covering a specific period, demanding a duty amount. The Additional Commissioner confirmed these demands, leading the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise, who upheld the duty demand. Subsequently, a single appeal was filed before the CESTAT, which is pending adjudication.The court examined the definition of 'tax dues' under Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2019, which necessitates disclosing the total duty amount being disputed in a single appeal pending before an Appellate Forum. The petitioner filed an application under the Scheme, reflecting the tax dues and making a pre-deposit. The rejection of this application was based on the ground that four separate declarations should have been filed.The court analyzed Rule 3(2) of the Rules, which requires a separate application for each 'case,' defining a 'case' as a show cause notice, an amount in arrears, an enquiry, investigation, or a voluntary disclosure. It noted that as of June 30, 2019, the SCNs were not pending, as they had been adjudicated with consolidated orders passed. Therefore, the petitioner's contention of filing one declaration for the single pending appeal before the CESTAT was deemed justified.The court considered the definition of 'order' under the Finance Act and invoked Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, allowing the singular to include the plural. It concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application solely based on filing one declaration instead of four was unjustified. Additionally, it highlighted that the Respondents did not dispute the petitioner's claim that filing four separate declarations would result in a lower payment amount compared to the amount agreed upon in the filed declaration.Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application within a specified timeframe. It granted the petitioner the liberty to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved by the decision on the application.