TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioners : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.M.Santhanaraman, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi (for R1) R2 - Tribunal COMMON JUDGMENT DR. ANITA SUMANTH., J. Part A : WA.No.2388 of 2022 W.P.No.17798 of 2022 had been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner before us, seeking a declaration that all action and proceedings on the file of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the Chief Commissioner, Chennai, Customs Zone, pursuant to a complaint filed on 24.05.2022 by XYZ/R4 ('complaint'/'sexual harassment complaint') and to investigate which, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had been constituted and a notice issued by the ICC on 04.06.2022, were illegal and ultra vires. 2. The Writ Petition had been dismissed on 09.09.2022 as not maintainable. The learned Judge has, in the order impugned in this Writ Appeal, opined that there are disputed questions of fact in regard to various contentions raised by the appellant and by XYZ, including whether the lodging of the complaint is within the time stipulated under Section 9 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Protection, Prohibiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel appearing for the learned counsel for the official Respondents as well as R4, who reiterate the contents of the complaint, and takes us minutely through various provisions of the POSH Act, relevant Regulations, the Service Rules, the SVLDRS Scheme and the technological processes involved in the processing of Declarations under that Scheme, to illustrate that no fault can be attributed to XYZ in the matter. 9. XYZ had filed the complaint on 24.05.2022 before R1 alleging sexual harassment at work place by the appellant. That complaint, the appellant points out, has been given on the heels of a memorandum issued to R4/XYZ by the Additional Commissioner (P&V) on 28.02.2022 calling for an explanation for certain lapses in processing the Declaration filed by one Sundaram Sathishkumar, Proprietor of Heaven Engineering, Chennai (in short 'assessee'), under the SVLDRS scheme that had been floated by the Customs Department for settlement of tax arrears. 10. Hence it is the case of the appellant that the sexual harassment complaint is nothing but a counter blast by R4 to the investigation that has been launched against her, and has absolutely no substance otherwise. 11. XYZ for her p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned. XYZ has, in complaint dated 24.05.2022 belaboured on the provisions of the SVLDRS Scheme under the SVLDRS Act, 2019 and outlined the procedures followed to process the application of the assessee under the SVLDRS Scheme. 17. According to her, her actions were correct and any inquiry would vindicate those actions in full. She reiterates that it is only on account of her rebuffing the appellant, that the memo was issued to her in the first place. On the other hand, the appellant would submit that the complaint has itself been filed only to divert attention from the memo issue to R4 for her lapses in duty. 18. R4 has put forth three requests in complaint dated 24.05.2022. Firstly, that immediate action be taken under her complaint dated 24.05.2022 for sexual harassment by the appellant, secondly, remove the file relating to the memorandum issued to her in regard to the SVLDRS application and assign the same to a senior officer who may enquire into it independently and without bias, and thirdly to look into the reasons why the appellant had not adjudicated the show cause notice issued to the assessee in February, 2020, despite the SVLDRS being clear that action ought to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... spoke inappropriately about the physical needs of human beings, knowing that she was living alone at that time. His statements relating to the need of humans for physical closeness seemed very much like advances made to her. d) In April, 2020, during the Covid lockdown he asked her to accompany him to a Bar in Crown Plaza adding that he knew the owner of the hotel and hence it would be specially opened just for the two of them. e) Since she had blocked his mobile number after this conversation where she had not accepted his invitation, the next day, he called her on the landline. f) Then, in December, 2021, she ran into him outside the lift and along with her batchmate, who was with her, she was asked to come to his room where he made series of sarcastic comments. According to her, even her colleague noted both her discomfiture and his sarcastic attitude. g) The appellant was stated to have been speaking to various persons about R4 disparagingly, also stating that he wanted to find some material that he could use against her in a professional capacity. h) Her complaint was filed on 24.05.2022. Though the last personal interaction with R4 is mentioned as December, 2021, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to the inclusion of the member at serial number 1 as part of the Committee, since both that member and Mr.Ganta Ravindranath, Principal Commissioner were part of the Designated Committee, involved in the processing of SVLDRS applications in that Commissionerate including the application of the assessee, Heaven Engineering. 28. The appellant had also requested that any other member recommended by Mr.Ganta Ravindranath may be excluded from the purview of the ICC. That being an interim reply, the appellant has sought time to file a detailed reply. Ultimately, a detailed reply had been filed by the appellant, changes had been made to the constitution of the Committee by excluding the member at serial number 1 and proceedings had been commenced by the ICC. 29. The constitution of the ICC does not inspire confidence. Learned Additional Solicitor General accedes to the position that Ms. Manasa Gangotri Kata ought not to have featured in the ICC as a member. That apart, Ms.M.Sheela, who was appointed as an external member of the ICC was, admittedly, and as confirmed by Union, a panel counsel at the time of her inclusion in the ICC. Her inclusion in the panel is also therefore inapprop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30.07.2022 stands disbanded and that Inquiry report shall be eschewed. (ii) Complaint of R4 dated 22.05.2022 stands restored to the file of the Principal Commissioner for disposal afresh. (iii) An Internal Complaints Committee be set up de novo, wherein none of the earlier committee members shall be included. It is to be ensured that the members of the Committee are selected in line with the provisions of the Act and Rules as prescribed in this regard. (iv) The Committee shall be constituted within a period of one week from date of uploading of the order, and the first hearing before the Committee shall be scheduled with a week from its constitution. (v) Notices of hearing shall be issued well in advance to the parties, including R4, witnesses, as well as any others that the Committee deems necessary including the Appellant at their discretion, calling upon them to appear for the hearings before the Committee. (vi) The ICC shall be provided with due assistance by the authorities, including specifically the DOT, in regard to verification of call records as this is a critical feature of the complaint and it is imperative that the allegations relating to phone calls having b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m should be created within the organization for redressal of complaints by a victim providing specifically for time bound disposals. 41. In the record of proceedings dated 26.04.2004, the Court directed as follows: '2....Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan ((1997) 6 SCC 241) at p.253, will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called "the CCS Rules") and the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the Rules.' 42. In the final judgment of Medha Kotwal Lele V Union of India and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 297], where the compliance report of various States/Union Territories have been recorded, the Court records that the State of Tamil Nadu has carried out amendments in the Civil Services Conduct Rules. However, no amendments have been made in the Standing Orders so far. 43. As far as the CCC(CCA) Rules are concerned, Rule 14 under Part VI deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties, and the Rule,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is proposed to be sustained. (b) On receipt of the articles of charge, the Government servant shall be required to submit his written statement of defence, if he so desires, and also state whether he desires to be heard in person, within a period of fifteen days, which may be further extended for a period not exceeding fifteen days at a time for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf: Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time for filing written statement of defence shall exceed forty-five days from the date of receipt of articles of charge. 5 (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its. Note : The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. (b) The Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf. 44. Office Memoranda and Instructions have also been issued setting out Guidelines for the procedure to be followed in the processing of sexual harassment complaints. Under the following Instruction, the Chairpersons of Internal Complaint Committees have been asked to ensure their familiarity with the CCS (CCA) Rules as well as the Guide prepared for that purpose by the DoPT: F.No.11013/2/2014-Estt (A-III) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training **** North Block, New Delhi Dated July 16th, 2015 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Steps for conducting inquiry in case of allegation of Sexual Harassment Undersigned is directed to say that during the meeting of the Chairpersons of Compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of incidents, three months of the last incident. The Complaints Committee may however extend the time limit for reasons to be recorded in writing, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the complainant from filing a complaint within the stipulated period. As mentioned above, the complaints of sexual harassment are required to be handled by Complaints Committee. On receipt of a complaint, facts of the allegation are required to be verified. This is called preliminary inquiry/fact finding inquiry or investigation. The Complaints Committee conducts the investigation. They may then try to ascertain the truth of the allegations by collecting the documentary evidence as well as recording statements of any possible witnesses including the complainant. If it becomes necessary to issue a Charge Sheet, disciplinary authority relies on the investigation for drafting the imputations, as well as for evidence by which the charges are to be proved. Therefore this is a very important part of the investigation. (D) INQUIRY UNDER CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965 [SECOND STAGE] Dual Role In the light of the Proviso to the Rule 14 (2) mentioned above, the Complaints Committee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken as per Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 48. The Supreme Court in the case of Nisha Priya Bhatia (Foot Note Infra (70)) has taken note of the position that a co-ordinated approach is the order of the day when dealing with sexual harassment complaints as against a Central Government employee stating so, at paragraph 97 thereof, extracted below: 97. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the petitioner seems to have confused two separate inquiries conducted under two separate dispensations as one cohesive process. The legal machinery to deal with the complaints of sexual harasment at workplace is well delineated by the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 (hereinafter "the 2013 Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. There can be no departure whatsoever from the procedure prescribed under the 2013 Act and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (for short "the 2013 Rules"), either in matters of complaint or of inquiry thereunder. The sanctity of such procedure stands undisputed. The inquiry under the 2013 Act is a separate inquiry of a fact-finding nature. Post the conduct of a fact-finding inquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of the Rules. The procedure followed by the Complaints Committee shall, as far as practical be in accordance with the procedure set out under these Rules. 51. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Complaints Committee or ICC, would conduct a broad, fact-finding investigation, the purpose of which is to ascertain prima facie, if the allegations of sexual harassment are plausible. As the memorandum states, documentary evidence may be collected, statements may be recorded, including those of the complaint and prima facie conclusions be drawn in regard to the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 52. The rival contentions advanced are, while the appellant would insist on a full hearing before the ICC, and being furnished with all materials collected by the Complaints Committee even at this stage, R4 would object to the necessity for such a full-fledged inquiry, pointing that it is only a preliminary investigation, one of marshalling of facts, at this stage. 53. The appellant would specifically rely on the narration in Office Memorandum (OM) dated 04.11.2022 to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements of witnesses including the complainant. 60. The OM does not specifically refer to the recording of statement of the officer as against whom complaint has been made but we leave it to the discretion of the Committee to be formed, as to whether they would prefer to record his statement as well. We hasten to add that no direction has been given in this regard and it is for the ICC to decide on this aspect. 61. As far as the apprehensions expressed by the appellant in regard to the last four lines which we have italicized at paragraph 53 above, we are of the view that the apprehension is misplaced. No doubt, the exercise of fact-finding is an important part of the exercise in the procedure for dealing with a sexual harassment complaint. 62. However, the marshalling of facts at the preliminary stage is only to enable the Complaints Committee/ICC to decide whether, prima facie, the complaint by R4 comes within the contours of a sexual harassment complaint under the Act and Rules. While being an important part of the investigation, it does not bind any of the authorities in the subsequent stages in the procedure. 63. In fact, the very reason why the OM has cautioned against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of its functions as inquiry committee and thirdly, before the Disciplinary authority prior to completion of the proceedings. The element of natural justice is hence satisfied in full. 69. In answering the issues as above, we have taken note of the following citations made by the parties: Citations of the Appellant in W.A.No.2388 of 2022 1.M/s.Padmavathi Srinivasan V. The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.No.11797 of 2021 dated 23.02.2024) 2.M/s.S.B.Homes V. The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Chennai South GST Commissionerate and others (W.P.Nos.24731 of 2021 etc. batch dated 09.02.2022) 3.Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [(2021) 6 SCC 774] 4.Dr.R.Rajendran v. Board of Governors, Rep. by the Chairman, National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (NITTTR), Taramani, Chennai-113 and others (WP.No.15247 of 20211 dated 12.04.2016) 5.Dr.P.Govindaraju v. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012 (WP(MD)No.979 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020) 6.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Represented by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012 v. Dr.P.Govindaraju (W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SCC 409] 28.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. and others v. M.Subramanian (W.A.No.587 of 2008 dated 03.07.2008) 29.Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. (Appeal (Crl.)No.179 of 2008 dated 24.01.2008) 30. N.S.Madhanagopal v K. Lalitha (Crl.Appeal No. 1759 of 2022 dated 10.10.2022) 31. Mahamood Ali & Ors v State of U.P. & Ors [2023 INSC 684] 32. Malik Builders v Union of India (Civil Writ Petition No. 7257 of 2021 dt 30.08.2022 (Rajasthan HC)) 33. Shri Debdulal Maity v National Insurance Co., Ltd., (W.P.No. 459 of 2014 dated 07.08.2014 (Calcutta HC)) Citations of R4 in W.A.No.2388 of 2022 1.Biecco Lawrie Limited and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another [(2009) 10 SCC 32] 2.National Institute of Technology v. U.dinakar and Another [(2014) 13 SCC 180] 3.Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 703] 4.Union of India and Others v. Mudrika Singh [(2022) 16 SCC 456] 5.Union of India and Others v. Dilip Pual [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423] 6.Dr.Sohail Malik v. Union of India and Another [2023 SCC OnLine Del 3764] 7.Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and lengthy arguments on the propriety or otherwise of the processing of the Declaration of the assessee, M/s Heaven Engineering/Sundaram Sathishkumar by R4. R4 was not part of the Designated Committee, responsible for the final processing and acceptance of the Declarations. She was however part of the team of the Designated Committee, entrusted with certain preliminary functions. 71. The entire sequence in regard to this issue, has been the subject matter of narration, discussion and conclusion in W.A.No.602 of 2025, decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us, Anita Sumanth J., was part. That writ appeal arose from an order dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P.No. 11098 of 2024 where the assessee, M/s Heaven Engineering/Sundaram Sathishkumar had challenged a show cause notice dated 06.02.2020 proposing a demand in the region of Rupees nine crores (approx.). 72. The show cause notice had been issued by the Department after receipt of the SVLDRS Declaration and the stand of the assessee was that no proceedings could be initiated after the filing of the Declaration opting for the Amnesty Scheme. However, the Department defended the show cause notice on the ground tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... place in 2019 by the same unit and a statement has also been recorded from the respondent on 09.12.2019 and 04.02.202. 20. Therefore, admittedly, the Declaration falls within the category of 'Investigation, inquiry or Audit'. However, the respondent has selected 'Voluntary Disclosure' as the category under which the Declaration has been submitted. By virtue of the said incorrect selection, it is the say of the Appellants that the method of verification has been different as the category in which the Declaration is submitted would determine the mode of verification. 21. According to them, had the Declaration been submitted under the proper category, disclosing that the respondent had been subject to Investigation/inquiry/audit, the further processes of issuing Forms 3, receiving the payment and issuing the Discharge Certificate in Form 4 would not have transpired. They say that the choice of the incorrect category by the Respondent was deliberate so as to thwart the proper processes and attain the acceptance of his application. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions in this regard. The selection of category as 'voluntary disclosure' is, undoubtedly, incorrect.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NavrajGoyai) OSD(CX) *** Circular No. 1072/05/2019-CX. F. No. 267/78/2019/CX-8-Pt.II? Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Dated, the 25th September, 2019 To The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners (All) The Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All) Subject: Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019-reg Dear Madam/Sir, I am directed to invite your attention to Board's Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27th August, 2019 on the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Subsequently, the Board has received references from field formations as well as from the trade seeking certain clarifications on the Scheme. 2. The references received by the Board have been examined, and the issues raised therein are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rules made thereunder, as follows: (i) Only the persons who are eligible in terms of Section 125 can file a declaration under the Scheme. The eligibility conditions are captured in Form SVLDRS-1 (Sr. No. 8). The system automatically disallows persons w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 26. Investigation was re-commenced on 06.12.2019 by the same agency and statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 09.12.2019 and 04.02.2020. The position that investigation was on-going is thus established and there can be no two opinions in this regard. 27. Section 125 of the Scheme deals with 'Declaration under Scheme' and reads as under: 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely:- (a) who have filed an appeal before the appellate forum and such appeal has been heard finally on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; (b) who have been convicted for any offence punishable under any provision of the indirect tax enactment for the matter for which he intends to file a declaration; (c) who have been issued a show cause notice, under indirect tax enactment and the final hearing has taken place on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; (d) who have been issued a show cause notice under indirect tax enactment for an erroneous refund or refund; (e) who have been subjected to an inquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said inquiry or investigation or audit has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment under SVLDRS - 3 Scheme. SVLDRS-4 discharge certificate was issued to the respondent on 23.07.2020. 33. On 14.08.2020, a second reply had been filed by the respondent seeking more documents and time to file a reply, incidentally making reference to the SVLDRS application filed by him on 15.01.2020. On 27.08.2020, the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (TRC Section) Chennai Outer Commissionerate writes a letter to the Assistant Commissioner ECM referring to SVLDRS application filed by the respondent. 34. The officer notes therein, for the first time, that an investigation was under process against the respondent by the Investigation and Compliance Management Section, Chennai Outer Commissionerate, show cause notice dated 06.02.2020 had been issued to the tax payer and that there was a deliberate misdeclaration in that application. 35. Interestingly, both the addressee and the addressor in that letter are one and the same, meaning essentially that the same person who was holding two charges, has written to herself from her capacity as Assistant Commissioner (ECM) to herself in the capacity as Assistant Commissioner (TRC Section). 36. The third reply to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) in a case of voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and proceedings under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted.' (Emphasis in bold, ours) 39. Section 129(1) says that every discharge certificate issued under Section 126 is conclusive, subject to certain caveats under Section 129(2). The exception that is applicable in this case is set out under Section 129(2)(c) of the Scheme. Our interpretation of clause (c), based on the plain language in which it is couched, is that if a material particular in an application is found to be false within one year from the issue of the Discharge Certificate, there shall be a presumption as though the Declaration had never been made with all statutory consequences to follow. 40. The application filed on 15.01.2020 certainly contains a false declaration of a material particular, as the very category under which it has been submitted is wrong. Hence we are of the considered view that the presumption for obliteration o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mains. A specific clarification was sought by us related to the letters dated 26.02.2020, 27.02.2020 and 21.02.2020 issued by the DGGI (CZU), Superintendent (ECM) and Commissioner of GST and Excise, Audit II Commissionerate respectively, confirming that there was no investigation or audit as against the respondent. Our attention is drawn to the file notings as below: 46. The explanation tendered is that, there was no investigation or audit pending as on that date, that is on 26.02.2020, 27.02.2020 & 28.02.2020, when the letters had been sent, which is why those agencies had stated so in their letters. They also refer to the show cause notice issued on 06.02.2020 in this regard. This explanation is clearly an afterthought. 47. As on 27.02.2020, the stand of the Department as reflected in the file notings is that the Declaration of the Respondent is to be accepted, as they say. 'As per S.125(1)(f)(ii), where return has been filed and an amount of duty indicated as payable has not been paid, then the ARN become ineligible under SVLDRS. However, in this case no duty has been declared in the return filed. - DGGI, CZU, Audit and ECM have stated that no inquiry or audit initiated agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....processing of the SVLDRS applications. There were aberrations and defalcations in the discharge of duty by those officers involved in the implementation of the SVLDRS scheme including the members of the Designated Committee. Disciplinary action was initiated and some token punishment has been imposed. 54. Letter of the officer dated 27.08.2020 makes it clear that it was only at that time and juncture, that the Department awoke to the situation and realised that the Declaration of the respondent was compromised. Though it is projected to be innocuous, this is a material point, that reveals that all was not well with the processing of the applications by the Designated Committee. That letter reads thus: OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI - OUTER : I - 2054 . II : 600 040 NEWRY TOWERS : NO.2054 -I : II AVENUE : ANNA NAGAR : CHENNAI - 600 040 C.No.IV/06/23/2014-SIR Gr XI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In fact the above argument is incorrect, to their knowledge. We have the benefit of the proceedings of the memorandum issued to the Assistant Commissioner who had penned letter dated 27.08.2020, as conveyed to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, that had been produced before us. The findings and conclusion in those proceedings are as follows: Present state of proceedings related to the memorandum issued to ..................... by the Office of the Customs, GST and Central Excise, Chennai, Chennai Outer Commissionerate. 10. With reference to the above, it is submitted that vide letter dated 28.08.2024, the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai has informed inter alia that the investigation in respect of the case/issue referred to in the Memorandum No.GEXCOM/IGG/MISC/88/2021-VIG-O/O COMMR-CGST-CHN(O) dated 28.02.2022 was taken up by the Director General of Vigilance (DGOV), New Delhi and that after completion of the investigation the DGOV, New Delhi has communicated its decision/directions through a letter F.No.V.527/03/2023/794 dated 15.01.2024 to the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise wherein, at Para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icers in the Designated Committee, who proceeded to issue Form SVLDRS -3 and discharge certificate without reference to the show cause notice. 59. In light of our detailed discussion as above, particularly our interpretation of Section 129(2)(c) of the Scheme, we are of the view that the application filed in this case is vitiated by non-disclosure of material particulars, being the field relating to 'category'. As a result, the SVLDRS application is presumed not to have been filed at all. We hence reverse the order of the Writ Court and allow this Writ Appeal. 60. The Department is directed to proceed with the show cause notice in accordance with law, adhering to the principles of natural justice and conclude the proceedings within a period of three (3) months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. In light of the discussion as above, let the adjudication of the impugned Show Cause Notice be entrusted to some other Commissionerate and the directions in this paragraph, be communicated, to ensure compliance. 75. With this, the issue in regard to the processing of the SVLDRS Declaration stands decided. After devoting our anxious consideration to this matter, we conclude th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 13.07.2022 and as regards that, the Writ Petition had been dismissed stating that since O.A.No.609 of 2022 had been pending before the Tribunal, it is only the Tribunal which is the appropriate authority to hear the same. 80. In regard to order dated 13.07.2022, the Tribunal has ultimately disposed the application for the reasons that i) the suspension order did not indicate anything about sexual harassment, ii) no disciplinary proceedings were initiated nor was there any charge memo issued, iii) the headquarters of the appellant had been shifted to Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Kolkata Zone), iv) that there had been a direction that the appellant should not leave the headquarters without the permission of the competent authority, v) that he had been entitled to receive subsistence allowance and vi) that the suspension initiated by the Chennai Zone could not continue when his office has been shifted to the Kolkata Zone. 81. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, assisted by Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Senior Standing Counsel would maintain that the suspension had emanated only from the recommendations of the ICC. He would also submit that the extant statuto....