2020 (7) TMI 118 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - rejection of declaration filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - petitioner had not placed the entire correspondence exchanged between the parties - HELD THAT - This Court had directed the petitioner to place on record the entire correspondence exchanged between the parties. Petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 01st July, 2020 in which it is stated that the present case is of delayed payment of service tax for which the petitioner had filed the application under the Scheme 2019. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the respondents reference to communication dated 26th September, 2019 is incorrect as no such communication was sent to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Allegation of tax evasion.
4. Discrepancy in communication exchanged between parties.
5. Requirement for filing a counter-affidavit.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 in the present writ petition. The rejection was alleged to be in violation of natural justice principles and contrary to the provisions of the Scheme itself. The petitioner contended that previous judgments have emphasized that non-adherence to natural justice principles is against the rule of law and such actions are liable to be struck down.

2. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the respondents claimed the petitioner had not provided the complete correspondence exchanged between the parties, specifically mentioning a communication dated 26th September, 2019. However, the petitioner, through a supplementary affidavit, denied the existence of such communication and clarified that the case pertained to delayed payment of service tax, for which the application under the Scheme was filed.

3. The respondents presented the petitioner's letter dated 26th September, 2019 during the hearing. Nevertheless, the petitioner's counsel, under the direction of the petitioner's Director, clarified that the mentioned letter was actually a statement made by the Director to the respondents on 26th March, 2019. This discrepancy led the Court to direct the respondents to file a counter-affidavit to address the conflicting information presented.

4. Considering the controversy surrounding the communication and the conflicting claims made by both parties, the Court issued a notice to the respondents. The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents accepted the notice, and the Court directed the filing of a counter-affidavit within four weeks. Additionally, a provision for rejoinder, if necessary, was granted within a further period of four weeks, with the case listed for hearing on 15th September, 2020.

5. The Court emphasized the importance of filing the counter-affidavit promptly and ordered the uploading of the order on the website immediately. Furthermore, a copy of the order was to be forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail to ensure timely communication and adherence to the procedural requirements of the case.