2021 (1) TMI 269 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit under the SVLDRS - writ applicant would submit that, the issue involved is very limited and if this Court takes the view that his client is entitled to claim the benefit under the SVLDRS, the order in original passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara would pale into insignificance - HELD THAT - As the other side is not ready with the matter, it is not possible for this Court to proceed today with the hearing of the main matter. As a last chance, post this matter on 20.01.2021. We are adjourning this matter with a distinct understanding that on the next date of hearing, if none appears for the respondent, this Court shall proceed to hear Mr. Sujit Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ applicant on merits and pass an appropriate order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appearance of learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
2. Limited issue regarding entitlement to claim benefit under SVLDRS.
3. Adjournment of the matter for further hearing.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with mentioning the appearance of Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, who informed the court about his inability to continue representing the respondent due to reshuffling of standing counsel on the panel of the Union of India. The court had previously asked Mr. Shah to discuss the issue with the concerned authority in light of a previous judgment. The absence of the respondent's counsel led to the matter being adjourned to a later date for further proceedings.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ applicant, Mr. Sujit Ghosh, highlighted that the issue at hand was limited. He stated that if the court determines that the applicant is entitled to claim benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, the original order passed by the Commissioner would lose significance. This indicates that the core issue revolves around the entitlement of the applicant to avail benefits under the SVLDRS, emphasizing the importance of this determination in the case.

3. Due to the unavailability of the respondent's representation on the scheduled hearing date, the court decided to adjourn the matter to a future date, specifically to 20.01.2021. The court made it clear that if the respondent fails to appear on the next hearing date, the court will proceed to hear the Senior Counsel for the writ applicant on the merits of the case and issue an appropriate order. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair hearing and resolution of the matter despite the respondent's absence.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the key issues addressed by the court, including the appearance of counsel, the central issue of entitlement under the SVLDRS, and the procedural steps taken for further adjudication of the case.