Appeal overturns dismissal, corrects erroneous form, annuls demand, grants payment extension.

The appeal was allowed, overturning the dismissal of the writ petition and the erroneous Form SVLDRS 3 issued by the Designated Committee. The Committee was instructed to review the pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and reissue Form SVLDRS 3 within six weeks. The demand dated 26th July 2021 was annulled, and the appellant was granted a reasonable period for any required payment following the issuance of the revised Form SVLDRS 3.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-appearance of respondents and appointment of counsel.
2. Dismissal of writ petition due to expiry of the scheme.
3. Eligibility and submission under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
4. Discrepancy in the pre-deposit amount in Form SVLDRS 2 and 3.
5. Non-communication of reasons for rejection of pre-deposit.
6. Object and interpretation of the scheme.
7. Circulars and instructions issued by the department.
8. Rectification of errors by the Designated Committee.
9. Functioning of the Designated Committee post scheme expiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-appearance of respondents and appointment of counsel:
In the initial proceedings, despite the call, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The court directed Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, who usually represents the respondents, to appear in the instant appeal and regularize his appointment.

2. Dismissal of writ petition due to expiry of the scheme:
The intra-Court appeal was filed against the order dated 4th October 2021, where the writ petition was dismissed solely because the appellant approached the Court after the scheme expired on 30th June 2020. The appellant questioned the correctness of this dismissal.

3. Eligibility and submission under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The appellant filed a declaration under the scheme on 12th December 2019. The appeal was pending before the Tribunal, making the appellant eligible to file a declaration. The appellant mentioned a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and indicated tax due as Rs. 10,98,015/-.

4. Discrepancy in the pre-deposit amount in Form SVLDRS 2 and 3:
The Designated Committee issued Form SVLDRS 2 indicating the pre-deposit amount as “0” (zero). The appellant filed an application under Section 127 of the Act, pointing out the error and requesting rectification. Despite this, Form SVLDRS 3 was issued again showing the pre-deposit amount as “0” (zero).

5. Non-communication of reasons for rejection of pre-deposit:
The appellant was not communicated any written orders explaining why the pre-deposit amount continued to be reflected as “0”. The appellant submitted a representation on 19th February 2020, pointing out the error, but received a notice of demand dated 26th July 2021 without any prior communication of rejection.

6. Object and interpretation of the scheme:
The court emphasized that the object of the scheme was to encourage settlement of disputes and should be given a purposive interpretation. Arbitrary and unreasonable actions by authorities that violate Article 14 of the Constitution can be remedied by the court under Article 226.

7. Circulars and instructions issued by the department:
The court referred to Circular No.1072/05/2019-CX and C.B.I. & C. Instruction No.1/2021-CX, which clarified the application of pre-deposits and manual processing of declarations. The Designated Committee failed to consider these circulars, leading to non-application of mind.

8. Rectification of errors by the Designated Committee:
The court noted that Section 127 empowers the Designated Committee to rectify errors within 30 days of issuing a statement. The appellant had exercised the opportunity to indicate disagreement and file written submissions, which were not duly considered by the Committee.

9. Functioning of the Designated Committee post scheme expiry:
The court rejected the revenue's argument that the Designated Committee became functus officio after the scheme expired. The Committee's function to decide claims starts upon an application being made, and the appellant's representation was submitted well before the scheme's closure.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the writ petition's dismissal and the Form SVLDRS 3 issued by the Designated Committee. The Committee was directed to reconsider the pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and issue a fresh Form SVLDRS 3 within six weeks. The demand dated 26th July 2021 was also set aside, and reasonable time was to be granted to the appellant for any due payment post issuance of the fresh Form SVLDRS 3.

---