Court directs committee to consider objections and issue final demand within 30 days. Challenge to adjudication order not entertained.

The court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the Designated Committee to consider the written objections/arguments and issue the appropriate final demand of net Estimate Amount Payable (EAP) on Form SVLDRS-3 within thirty days. The challenge to the adjudication order was not entertained, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the estimate furnished under Form SVLDRS-2.
2. Validity of the adjudication order passed during the pendency of proceedings under the Scheme.
3. Determination of the correct Estimate Amount Payable (EAP).
4. Validity of the second declaration filed under the Scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the estimate furnished under Form SVLDRS-2:
The petitioners challenged the estimate furnished on Form SVLDRS-2 dated 04.12.2019, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, arguing that the EAP should have been computed at Rs. 15,37,816.00 against the total disputed tax dues of Rs. 80,75,626/- after adjusting the pre-deposited amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Designated Committee had computed the EAP at Rs. 70,11,055.50 based on the proposed excise duty liability of Rs. 1,40,22,111/- from the Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2015. The petitioners filed written objections/arguments dated 09.12.2019 and 26.12.2019, which were not addressed by the Designated Committee.

2. Validity of the adjudication order passed during the pendency of proceedings under the Scheme:
The adjudication order dated 30.12.2019, confirming the disputed duty liability at Rs. 80,75,626/- and dropping the duty liability of Rs. 59,46,648/-, was passed during the pendency of proceedings under the Scheme. The court noted that the Scheme does not contain any express provision to stay pending adjudication proceedings due to a declaration filed under it. However, the adjudication proceedings should have been kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the proceedings under the Scheme to avoid defeating the object of the Scheme, which aims to end legacy disputes.

3. Determination of the correct Estimate Amount Payable (EAP):
The court emphasized that the computation of the EAP under the case category 'Litigation' would be substantially lower than that computed under the 'Arrears' category. The Designated Committee should have issued the final demand of EAP on Form SVLDRS-3 after considering the written objections/arguments filed by the petitioners. The failure to issue the mandatory final demand on SVLDRS-3 meant that the proceedings under the (first) declaration filed on 30.10.2019 were still pending.

4. Validity of the second declaration filed under the Scheme:
The second declaration filed on 31.12.2019, arising from the adjudication order dated 30.12.2019, was deemed non-est and not maintainable in law. The cut-off date of 30.06.2019 for filing a declaration with respect to any order that may have been passed upon conclusion of adjudication proceedings was not met. Therefore, the second declaration had no legal effect, and the demand of EAP dated 17.01.2020 raised thereon was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed in part. The Designated Committee was directed to consider the written objections/arguments filed by the petitioners and issue the appropriate final demand of net EAP on Form SVLDRS-3 within thirty days. The challenge to the adjudication order dated 30.12.2019 was not entertained at this stage. No order as to costs.

---