Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were wrongly rejected on the ground that the show cause notices had already been finally heard or otherwise stood concluded. (ii) Whether the pendency of the show cause notices after remand by the appellate tribunal entitled the petitioner to relief under the Scheme, and whether the expiry of the Scheme or dismissal of an earlier writ petition defeated such entitlement.
Issue (i): Whether the declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were wrongly rejected on the ground that the show cause notices had already been finally heard or otherwise stood concluded.
Analysis: The Scheme extended relief to tax dues relatable to show cause notices pending as on 30 June 2019, and excluded only those cases where an appeal had been finally heard on or before that date. The show cause notices in question had been carried in appeal, the original adjudication had been set aside, and the matter had been remanded for de novo adjudication. No final adjudication after remand had been shown to exist on the relevant date. The basis taken in the rejection orders, namely that the notices had already been adjudicated and upheld, did not accord with the actual procedural position after remand.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declarations on the footing that the matter had already been finally heard was unsustainable and was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the pendency of the show cause notices after remand by the appellate tribunal entitled the petitioner to relief under the Scheme, and whether the expiry of the Scheme or dismissal of an earlier writ petition defeated such entitlement.
Analysis: Once the appellate tribunal set aside the original order and remanded the matter, the tax dues remained relatable to pending show cause notices for the purpose of the Scheme. The Scheme had been invoked within the extended time and the later expiry of the Scheme did not defeat declarations already filed during its currency. The earlier writ petition, which concerned only an interim pre-deposit order and had no bearing on the revived adjudication, could not be treated as rendering the declarations ineligible. The additional objection regarding proof of deposit also could not sustain the rejection in the circumstances found by the Court.
Conclusion: The petitioner remained eligible for consideration under the Scheme, and the respondents' objections based on expiry of the Scheme and the earlier writ petition were rejected, against the respondents.
Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection orders were set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered for granting appropriate relief under the Scheme after hearing the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an original excise adjudication is set aside in appeal and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, the resulting show cause notice remains pending for the purpose of an amnesty or dispute-resolution scheme that applies to pending notices on the relevant date, and such eligibility is not defeated merely because an earlier, unrelated procedural writ petition was dismissed or the scheme later expired.