2022 (12) TMI 912 - HC - Service Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking to consider the Declaration filed by the Petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 - It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the facts and circumstances, respondent No.4 proceeded to issue the impugned communication dated 11.03.2020 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order / communication at Annexure-A dated 11.03.2020 will clearly indicate that the same is a non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order which has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the detailed submissions of the petitioner nor the relevant provisions of the SVLDR Scheme or the Circulars and judgments relied upon by the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order / communication being violative of principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh of the claim of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in this order as well as the material on record including the Circulars dated 29.10.2019 and 06.10.2022 - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking writs of Certiorari and Mandamus to challenge an email and seek waiver of interest and penalty.
2. Request for writs of Mandamus to halt proceedings and prevent coercive measures during the petition's pendency.
3. Prayer for ad-interim reliefs and other appropriate orders.
4. Interpretation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR scheme) eligibility.
5. Allegation of arbitrary rejection of petitioner's application under the SVLDR scheme.
6. Argument based on Circulars and judicial precedents supporting petitioner's entitlement to SVLDR scheme benefits.
7. Respondent's contention of no merit in the petition.
8. Assessment of the impugned order's validity and compliance with natural justice principles.
9. Decision to allow the petition, quash the impugned order, and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought writs of Certiorari and Mandamus challenging an email and requesting waiver of interest and penalty under the SVLDR scheme. The petitioner argued that the rejection of their declaration under the SVLDR scheme was arbitrary. The respondent contended that the petition lacked merit. The court noted the impugned order's deficiencies, deeming it non-speaking and unreasoned. The court found the order violated natural justice principles and ordered its quashing. The court relied on Circulars and judicial precedents to support the petitioner's eligibility for SVLDR scheme benefits despite interest demands. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the respondents in compliance with the law and relevant provisions, Circulars, and judgments.