2022 (1) TMI 451 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking direction to Respondents to accept the application Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner and to issue discharge certificate - Petitioner also seeks an opportunity to put forth his case/submissions and for a direction that, a reasoned Order be passed thereafter - requirement of opportunity of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The question, as to, whether the tax liabilities are already quantified or not as on 30th June 2019 itself is a matter of dispute raised by the Petitioner in Writ Petition and also in the application/declaration filed under the said Scheme by the Petitioner before the Authorities. If according to the Respondents the tax liabilities were not quantified and the Petitioner was not eligible, the Respondents ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner before passing such Order rejecting the application made by the Petitioner on the ground of ineligibility. If the Petitioner would have been given an opportunity, the Petitioner would have pointed out the quantification of tax liability during the course of the hearing. In our view, personal hearing was necessary in this situation.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing rejection Order dated 30th December 2019 and mandamus to accept SVLDRS-1 application. Respondent issued show cause notice proposing service tax demand. Petitioner requests opportunity under SVS 2019. Respondent rejects application without hearing, citing ineligibility. Petitioner challenges rejection, citing quantified tax liability. Respondents argue tax liability not quantified by June 2019. Petitioner contends tax liability quantified earlier. Court examines need for personal hearing, cites principles of natural justice. Court quashes rejection orders, restores applications, directs fresh consideration with personal hearing.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the rejection Order dated 30th December 2019 and mandamus to accept the SVLDRS-1 application. The petitioner contended that the Respondent quantified service tax payable for certain periods and submitted required documents within the stipulated time. Additionally, the Petitioner quantified tax amounts for subsequent periods under the SVS Scheme 2019. However, the Respondent rejected the application without providing any opportunity for the Petitioner to be heard, citing discrepancies in online filings and ongoing investigation.

The Respondent issued a show cause notice proposing a substantial service tax demand, to which the Petitioner requested an opportunity to prove eligibility under SVS 2019 and rectify the declaration. The Respondent's failure to respond led to the filing of the present petition. The Petitioner argued that the tax liability was quantified by the Respondent earlier, a fact not disputed by the Respondents in their submissions before the Court.

The Court noted that the rejection of the applications without a hearing was a violation of natural justice. The Court emphasized the importance of affording the Petitioner a personal hearing to address the issue of eligibility under the SVS Scheme. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court held that personal hearing was necessary in this situation. The Court found the Respondent's contention of ineligibility without a hearing to be erroneous and ordered the applications to be restored for fresh consideration with a personal hearing.

Ultimately, the Court quashed the rejection orders, restored the applications, and directed the Respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The Court set clear timelines for the process and instructed that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner pending the outcome. The Court clarified that no views on the merits were expressed, leaving the contentions of both parties open. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the Petitioner.