9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the matter should be explained by the writ applicants before the concerned respondent in person. The impugned communication in Form SVLDRS-3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 herein i.e. the Designated Committee, Ahmedabad-South for fresh hearing on the issues in question - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7292 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2020 - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Appearance: MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: [A] Your Lordships be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside order of the Designated Authority (Respondent no.3) in form of SVLDRS-3 (Annexure-A) made under Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 thereby directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. 3. We need not go into any further details about the proceedings which came to be initiated by the Department against the writ applicants in the year 2016 as we are of the view that this litigation can be put to an end by appropriate directions to the respondents. 4. We may only observe that the show cause notice referred to above ultimately came to be adjudicated and an order in original dated 13.04.2017 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-V, Ahmedabad confirming the demand of duty amounting to ₹ 27,57,942/- under Section 11A(4) of the Act, 1944 with interest under Section 11AA of the said Act. The record further reveals that the adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/- in lieu of the confiscation of the excisable goods valued at ₹ 15,05,92,859/- manufactured and consumed by the writ applicants under Section 34 of the Act, 1944. 5. It appears that the order in original referred to above came to be challenged by the writ applicants by two separate appeals. It is the case of the writ applicants that they deposited ₹ 2,06,855/- as a pre-deposit equivalent to 7.5% of the total demand of the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme is known as the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 . 10. The main objective of the above referred Scheme is to liquidate the legacy cases of the Central Excise and Service Tax that are subsumed in the GST and are pending in litigation before the various forums. Under the Scheme, amnesty is allowed by offering an opportunity to the tax payers to pay the outstanding tax and get cleared of any other consequences under the law. 11. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicants herein thought fit to avail the benefit of the said Scheme referred to above and in the process filed two separate declarations under Section 125 of the said Act read with Rule 3 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as, Rules ). The two declarations were made in Form SVLDRS- 1. The dispute cropped up from this stage onwards. 12. It appears that the application preferred by the writ applicants seeking to avail the benefit of the Scheme was held to be not maintainable on the premise that the case involves the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and Section 129 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand as proposed in the SCN dated 02.05.2016 nor the said amount was appropriated by the adjudicating authority in their order dated 31.03.2017. Likewise, the challans of ₹ 2,75,909/- also could not be co-related to the said demand. Therefore, the petitioner was offered the opportunity of personal hearing to represent themselves, however, they have failed to produce any document which indicates that the aforesaid amount claimed by them are paid towards their liability created by the Show Cause Notice or Order-in-Original. 16. The declaration filed by the Petitioner No.1 was held to be void on the grounds that the case includes confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and Section 129 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 does not grant relief from confiscation or redemption fine. The Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to appear for personal hearing on 26.12.2019 in the matter. The declaration of Shri Tejas Dalal, was also not entertained on the grounds that being co-noticee, unless the main noticee settles the issue. 17. The Petitioner has made reference of the High Court of Gujarat Interim Order dated 24.12.2019 in respect of SCA No. 21744 of 2019 in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity of personal hearing was given to the writ applicants, yet the same was not availed. The writ applicants failed to appear before the concerned authority. 18. The aforesaid stance of the respondents is rebutted by the writ applicants in the form of an affidavit in rejoinder. In para 9 of the affidavit in rejoinder, the following averments have been made: 9 That the Petitioner was called for the personal hearing on 7.05.2020, which was the time, entire India was in complete lockdown situation and Petitioner s office was completely closed. Even the Respondent office must be closed during these days and therefore, there was no question of granting personal hearing on 7.05.2020. The Petitioner was conscious about the situation and therefore requested to grant personal / e-hearing . If the answering respondent wanted to complete the process in lockdown situation then fair opportunity of hearing should be granted to the Petitioner but they knew that no one will come for personal hearing and they can straight away decide the matter. If the answering respondent really wanted to decide fairly then they could have send email for the clarification that there is no facility a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
