2022 (12) TMI 236 - HC - Service Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was ready to pay the amount under SVLDR Scheme - respondent No.3 have proceeded to issue the impugned Communication rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned Communication at Annexure A will clearly indicate that the same is violative of principles of natural justice, in as much as no reason or sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the said Communication. The impugned Communication is also unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned Communication deserves to be quashed. So also, a perusal of the impugned Communication will indicate that the same is contrary to the Circular dated 12.12.2019, issued regarding applicability and maintainability of the aforesaid SVLDR scheme. The impugned Communication at Annexure A deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of SVLDR Scheme in favour of the petitioner - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking relief against rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, violation of principles of natural justice in communication, and ultra vires Circular No.1072/05/2019-CX.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, and respondent No.3 issued Form No.2 to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's readiness to pay the amount, the respondent rejected the claim. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief.

2. The court noted that the impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's claim was violative of principles of natural justice as no reason or opportunity was given to the petitioner. The communication was deemed unreasoned, non-speaking, and contrary to the Circular issued regarding the SVLDR scheme's applicability and maintainability.

3. The court held that the impugned communication deserved to be quashed due to the lack of reasons provided and the failure to apply the mind adequately. The court directed the respondents to grant the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice.

4. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned communication, and directed the respondents to issue Form No.3 within 15 days of the order. The petitioner was instructed to make the payment within four weeks of receiving Form No.3. Upon payment, the respondents were to issue the Discharge Certificate within two weeks, thereby concluding the matter in favor of the petitioner.