9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough Video Conference) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :- 1. Rule. 2. Mr.Ram Ochani, learned counsel for Respondent No.1; and Mr.Swapnil Bangur, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 waives service of notice. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally. 3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the rejection Order dated 30th December 2019, rejecting Form SVLDRS-1 and also seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to accept the application Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner and to issue discharge certificate. The Petitioner also seeks an opportunity to put forth his case/submissions and for a direction that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication was rejected on the ground "Nil returned filed online, Investigation under process / data provided in application does not match with record". 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice on 1st December 2020 for the period 2013-2014 (October - March) to 2017-2018 (upto June 2017) proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 87,79,971/- along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 70, 77(1) (d), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On 1st December 2020 the Petitioner requested the Respondent No.5 to grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to prove their eligibility under SVS 2019 and also to allow them to rectify declaration filed under the said Scheme. There was no response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible to make any application under the said Scheme. He submits that no purpose would have been served by granting any personal hearing to the Petitioner in these circumstances. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand invited our attention to the averments made by the Petitioner in paragraph Nos.4.3 to 4.8 of the Petition and submits that the tax liability was already quantified by the Respondent No.3. These averments are not disputed by the Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Reply filed before this Court. 11. A perusal of the averments made in the Petition clearly indicates that it was a specific case of the petitioner that the tax liability was already quantified as recorded in various paragraphs of the Petition. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r granting personal hearing to the Petitioner. 15. The principles of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saksham Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 8th December 2020, reported in 2020-TIOL-2108-HCMUM- ST, applies to the facts of this case. We are bound by the said judgment. We do not propose to take different view in the matter. 16. In our view the impugned Orders passed by the Respondents are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed and set-aside. We accordingly pass the following Order :- (i) The impugned Orders rejecting the applications filed by the Petitioner annexed at Exh.A are quashed and setaside. Both the applications file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
