Court overturns order on benefits eligibility under Sabka Vishwas Scheme; emphasizes fair hearing and procedural compliance

The court set aside the order declaring the petitioner ineligible for benefits under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to lack of quantification, citing a violation of natural justice principles for not granting a hearing. The court directed a reevaluation of eligibility with a personal hearing to be provided within a fortnight, emphasizing the need for fairness and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases. The decision did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving it open for presentation before the appropriate authority for a final determination. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against ineligibility for Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefits due to lack of quantification by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central.
Violation of principles of natural justice by not granting a hearing before declaring ineligibility.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order declaring them ineligible for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefits due to the absence of quantification by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central. The main contention was the lack of a hearing before the order was issued, violating principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the application was made upon meeting the necessary conditions for consideration under the scheme. However, no opportunity for a hearing was provided, which could have allowed the petitioner to address the ineligibility ground and potentially change the decision.

3. The respondents' senior advocate acknowledged the absence of a hearing and agreed that the petitioner's eligibility for the scheme should be reconsidered, leaving all points open for determination by the appropriate authority.

4. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the appropriate authority to reevaluate the petitioner's eligibility by granting a personal hearing within a fortnight of the court's order. A fresh decision in line with the law was mandated, with immediate communication to the petitioner post-hearing.

5. The court clarified that no opinion was given on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving all aspects open for presentation before the appropriate authority for a final decision.

6. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of without any costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing in matters affecting eligibility for government schemes.

---