Taxpayer entitled to Sabka Vishwas Scheme despite late investigations; Court emphasizes natural justice principles.

The High Court held that investigations initiated after the cut-off date should not disqualify a taxpayer from availing the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The rejection of the petitioner's declaration forms was deemed contrary to the law, and the Court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's forms were restored for a fresh decision with a directive for a personal hearing and a reasoned order within a specified timeline. The respondents were allowed to take action if false particulars were discovered within a year.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner to opt for Sabka Vishwas Scheme under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Rejection of petitioner's declaration forms under the Scheme due to an ongoing investigation.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by not granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Issue 1: Eligibility of the petitioner to opt for Sabka Vishwas Scheme:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 9th December, 2020, and 20th February, 2020. The petitioner had submitted a declaration form under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme but was rejected by the respondents on the grounds of ongoing investigation against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the investigation was initiated after the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019, and therefore, should not affect their eligibility under the Scheme. Reference was made to a judgment by the High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that investigations post the cut-off date should not bar eligibility for the Scheme.

Issue 2: Rejection of petitioner's declaration forms:
The High Court analyzed the facts and referred to the judgment in a similar case to determine the eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The Court held that investigations initiated after the cut-off date should not disqualify a taxpayer from availing the Scheme. It was emphasized that the investigation initiated after the specified date should not impact the eligibility of the petitioner to file a declaration under the voluntary disclosure category. The Court found the rejection of the petitioner's declaration forms by the respondents to be contrary to the law laid down by the previous judgment and the objectives of the Scheme.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Court noted that the respondents rejected the petitioner's declaration forms without granting an opportunity of being heard. It was held that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a chance to present their case. The Court emphasized the importance of granting an opportunity of being heard before rejecting such applications. Despite acknowledging the powers of the respondents to take action if false particulars are found, the Court stressed the need for procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders, restoring the petitioner's declaration forms for a fresh decision by the respondents. The Court directed the respondents to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a specified timeline. The Court also clarified that the respondents could take action if false particulars were found within a year. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were instructed to act as per the judgment.

---