2025 (7) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Soutrik Kar in WP Nos.1729, 1396 & 2152 of 2024. ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER M. S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These Writ Petitions concern the rejection of the Petitioner's applications for benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The Company has filed Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2022. The Company's employees have filed Writ Petition Nos. 1729, 1396, and 2152 of 2024. 4. In Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2022, the Petitioner is challenging:- (i) the rejection dated 31 December 2019 (Exhibit-B) by which declaration No.311....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctions, the Petitioner should have been heard, and since this was not done, the impugned order warrants interference. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondents submit that since the Petitioner was admittedly involved in manufacturing the cigarettes, the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. They rely on Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 in support of this contention. They submitted that since these provisions are so clear, there was no reason to afford the Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. 8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that the impugned orders, to the extent they reject wholesale the Petitioner's applications under the Scheme, warrant interference. ....