Court allows petitioner's Sabka Vishwas Scheme declaration, emphasizes natural justice, remands for reconsideration

The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, finding that the service tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date. Emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles, the court remanded the matter to the committee for reconsideration, directing a hearing for the petitioner within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Quantification of service tax dues before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019.
3. Rejection of the petitioner's declaration by the designated committee.
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the Petitioner under the Scheme:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction services, sought relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, by filing a declaration on 13.11.2019. The petitioner declared service tax dues of Rs. 39,56,080.00, as intimated by the respondent on 15.06.2019. The designated committee initially estimated the payable amount at Rs. 11,86,824.00, which the petitioner accepted. However, the declaration was rejected on the grounds that the service tax dues were not quantified on or before 30.06.2019.

2. Quantification of Service Tax Dues Before the Cut-off Date:
The court examined whether the service tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019. The petitioner received the letter quantifying the dues on 29.06.2019 via email and on 01.07.2019 physically. The respondents argued that the physical receipt date of 01.07.2019 rendered the petitioner ineligible. However, the court noted that the scheme required quantification, not communication, by the cut-off date. The quantification was done on 15.06.2019, thus meeting the requirement.

3. Rejection of the Petitioner's Declaration:
The rejection was based on the argument that the quantification was not conclusive and was received after the cut-off date. The court referred to previous judgments (Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India, M/s G.R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, and Saksham Facility Private Limited Vs. Union of India) which clarified that written communication of the amount of duty payable, including letters intimating duty demand or admitted liability, suffices for quantification. The court found that the petitioner’s dues were indeed quantified before the cut-off date, making the rejection unjustified.

4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain why their declaration should be accepted. The rejection without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. The court highlighted that adverse civil consequences necessitate compliance with natural justice principles, including notice and hearing.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration was not justified. The order dated 14.05.2020 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the designated committee to reconsider the declaration as valid under the scheme. The petitioner was to be given a hearing, and a speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks.

Judgment:
The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.

---