Court dismisses petition challenging SVLDR Scheme rejection, emphasizes dept's duty to verify declarations, not complete forms. Technical errors shouldn't override rights.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a rectification application under the SVLDR Scheme. The petitioner's failure to claim pre-deposits in SVLDRS-1 led to the rejection, with the court emphasizing the department's duty to verify declarations, not complete incomplete forms. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's genuine mistakes, the court held that technical errors should not override substantial rights. The petitioner's delay in filing the rectification application within the specified timeframe and failure to deposit the balance amount on time were also noted. The court advised pursuing separate actions against the bank or RBI for alleged negligence in payment processing.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of rectification application under SVLDR Scheme due to clerical error in declaration form.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the rectification application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme due to a clerical error in the SVLDR Scheme declaration form. The petitioner sought directions to accept the balance payment and issue a Discharge Certificate. The court noted the petitioner's failure to claim pre-deposits in SVLDRS-1, leading to the lapse of the SVLDRS application. The petitioner argued that the rejection without rectifying the declaration was unjust. However, the court held that the petitioner's mistake in leaving the pre-deposit column blank could not be blamed on the respondents. The court emphasized that the department's duty was to verify the correctness of the declaration, not complete an incomplete form.

The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions contravened the purpose of SVLDRS, aiming to assist compliance with the new GST regime without backlog. The court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine mistakes but emphasized that technical errors should not override substantial rights. The court highlighted that no rectification application was filed within the stipulated thirty days, despite the petitioner citing the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason for delay. The court found that the rectification was attempted much later, beyond the permissible timeline.

The petitioner also failed to deposit the balance amount by the deadline. The petitioner claimed that instructions to the bank for payment were not executed due to the bank's and RBI's negligence. However, the court ruled that without the bank's involvement in the proceedings, it couldn't conclude negligence. The court advised the petitioner to pursue actions against the bank or RBI separately if deemed necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and pending applications, deeming them lacking in merit. The court directed the order's immediate upload on the website and forwarding a copy to the counsel via email.

---