TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to determine the amount payable afresh under Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 under SABKA VISHWAS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 as pending litigation category after verification of the records. 2.The petitioner had a tax arrears payable to the respondent. Therefore, in order to get the benefit of the scheme called 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioner made an application and based on such application, the respondent, who is the authority, under the scheme, to determine the amount payable by permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit under the scheme, has decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such appeal has been heard finally on or before the 30th day of June, 2019;" 5.In this context, it is the case of the petitioner, as projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, as against the order passed by the original authority as well the Commissioner (Appeals), further appeal had been filed by the petitioner assessee before the CESTAT on 20.06.2019. One of the conditions which has been imposed under the scheme, especially, under Section 125(a) as referred to above, is that, those who filed appeal and the same had been heard finally, but orders were not passed as on 30.06.2019, shall not be eligible to claim any declaration under the scheme. By referring upon the said provision, learned Counsel would contend that, insofa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a "litigant" and not as "arrears". Therefore, the amount under the "litigation" category shall be the only amount payable by the petitioner. Therefore, the present requirement of paying the higher amount by treating the petitioner as an "arrears category" is unjustifiable and unlawful, as it goes against the spirit of the provisions of the scheme. 7.Heard Mr.K.Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, who would submit that, though it was claimed by the petitioner that the appeal was filed before the CESTAT on 20.06.2019, unless and until the appeal is numbered and it is pending adjudication before any appellate forum like the CESTAT, then only he can be considered to be an eligible person to be categorised under the li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the scheme. 10.Here, in the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20.06.2019 ie., 10 days prior to the cut off date before the CESTAT, therefore, on 30.06.2019, in the eye of law, there has been a litigation by way of appeal which has been filed and pending before the appellate forum. Whether the appeal filed on 20.06.2019 would be subsequently numbered or not is not the criteria, as the same has not been mentioned either under Section 124 or 125. Moreover, when there is a specific exclusion provided under Section 125, all other categories are eligible to seek such declaration in view of the language used in Section 125(1) ie., "all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this scheme except the foll....