Revenue authority wrongly rejected Sabka Vishwas declaration citing Section 125(i)(e) for post-cutoff investigation

The HC set aside the rejection of petitioner's declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Scheme) 2019. The revenue authority erroneously rejected the declaration citing Section 125(i)(e) embargo due to ongoing investigation. The court held that the bar against filing declaration applies only to enquiries/investigations initiated on or before 30.06.2019. Since the investigation commenced on 26.09.2019 through summons issuance, after the cut-off date, the rejection was unsustainable. Following Bombay HC precedent, the discharge certificate withdrawal was deemed unjustified, and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to revoke the Discharge Certificate.
2. Validity of investigation post 30.06.2019 as a bar under SVLDRS.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Authority to Revoke the Discharge Certificate:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the respondent, a member of the Designated Committee, does not have the power to revoke the Discharge Certificate issued by the Designated Committee. The court did not delve into this issue in detail as the primary contention was resolved on other grounds.

2. Validity of Investigation Post 30.06.2019:
The core issue was whether an enquiry, investigation, or audit initiated after 30.06.2019 imposes a bar against filing a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The petitioner received a summon on 26.09.2019, and the declaration was filed on 23.11.2019. The court referred to Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, which states that a person subjected to an enquiry or investigation, where the amount of duty has not been quantified before 30.06.2019, is ineligible to file a declaration. The court cited the Bombay High Court's decision in New India Civil Erectors Private Limited vs. Union of India, which clarified that the embargo applies only if the enquiry or investigation was initiated on or before 30.06.2019. As the investigation in this case commenced on 26.09.2019, the court held that the rejection of the discharge certificate was unsustainable.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was made unilaterally, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the court did not examine this contention in detail, as the primary issue was resolved on the basis of the timing of the investigation.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the investigation initiated post 30.06.2019 cannot bar the petitioner from filing a declaration under the SVLDRS. The writ petition was disposed of, and the impugned order was declared void. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---