2019 (12) TMI 1067 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of application under SVLDRS, 2019 - rejection mainly on the ground that the designated committee after due consideration of the definition of the word quantified as provided under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 observed that as the tax dues were not intimated, therefore, the same was not quantified for the period involved - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the order impugned dated 24/10/2019 is the unilateral decision taken by respondent No.2 sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any order passed by the quasi judicial authority adversely affecting the rights of the parties should be strictly in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his explanation/reply to the application - The matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.2 to re-consider the matter - petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 based on non-quantification of tax dues.
2. Allegation of a unilateral decision violating principles of natural justice.
3. Justification of the impugned order by the revenue.
4. Lack of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by respondent No.2.
5. Quashing of the order and restoration of the matter for re-consideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 due to the non-quantification of tax dues. The rejection was based on the observation that the tax dues were not quantified for the period involved. The petitioner contended that previous communications regarding tax liabilities and payments were not considered, leading to the rejection. The court noted the importance of quantification in such matters and the need for adherence to defined procedures.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about a unilateral decision by respondent No.2, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The court emphasized that any decision by a quasi-judicial authority impacting parties' rights must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice. It was deemed necessary to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present their explanation, highlighting the significance of fair procedures in such cases.

3. The counsel for the revenue attempted to justify the impugned order, but the court's focus remained on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. The court's scrutiny of the material on record revealed the lack of a proper opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before the decision was made, underscoring the importance of fair hearings in administrative proceedings.

4. The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that the unilateral decision without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case was not in line with the principles of natural justice. As a result, the court quashed the order dated 24/10/2019 and directed the matter to be reconsidered by respondent No.2. The petitioner was instructed to appear before respondent No.2 without further notice to present their explanations.

5. In the final disposition, the court restored the matter for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and a decision in accordance with the law. The order highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings and left all rights and contentions of the parties open for further consideration. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions for a re-examination of the matter.

← Previous Next →