Natural justice under legacy tax amnesty scheme bars summary rejection of declarations without hearing or defect rectification.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, a declaration with civil consequences could not be summarily rejected for ineligibility without notice and a hearing, because natural justice applied to the Designated Committee's decision-making. The Court also held that a bona fide mistake or technical defect in an online application should not defeat the scheme's remedial object; the applicants had to be allowed to rectify defects and resubmit fresh applications. The impugned rejection was therefore set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration by a speaking order after hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be rejected as ineligible without giving the declarant an opportunity of hearing; (ii) whether applications filed with a bona fide mistake and technical defects could be rejected without affording an opportunity to rectify and resubmit them.

Issue (i): whether a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be rejected as ineligible without giving the declarant an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Scheme was treated as a beneficial amnesty measure meant to unload legacy service tax and excise litigation. The Court followed the view that where the Designated Committee is required to issue notice and grant hearing when the amount estimated by it exceeds the amount declared, it would be inconsistent with the Scheme and with fairness to summarily reject a declaration on ineligibility without hearing the declarant. Rejection of a declaration has adverse civil consequences, and the principles of natural justice were held to apply.

Conclusion: The declaration could not be rejected on the ground of ineligibility without affording the petitioners a hearing.

Issue (ii): whether applications filed with a bona fide mistake and technical defects could be rejected without affording an opportunity to rectify and resubmit them.

Analysis: The mistake in the online form was not treated as malicious or deliberate. The Court held that a hyper-technical approach should not defeat the object of the Scheme, particularly where the scheme itself was intended to facilitate resolution of legacy dues. It was considered appropriate that the petitioners be permitted to file fresh online or offline applications and that the authority examine them after giving an opportunity if any flaw was noticed.

Conclusion: The rejection on technical grounds was unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to have fresh applications considered after hearing.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the matter was restored for reconsideration in accordance with natural justice, with liberty to submit fresh applications and have them decided by a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a beneficial tax amnesty scheme, a declaration carrying civil consequences cannot be summarily rejected for ineligibility or technical defect without notice and hearing, and the authority must adopt a fair and liberal approach consistent with natural justice.

---