9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght, to the extent that there is nothing stated in the e-mail dated 05.03.2020, as to whether or not the impact of the circulars dated 25.09.2019 and 29.10.2019 was taken into account, before respondent no.3/Designated Committee concluded that the declaration made by the petitioner deserved to be rejected - the matter needs a fresh examination by respondent no.3/Designated Committee. Respondent no.3/Designated Committee is, thus, directed to reexamine the matter. Respondent no.3/Designated Committee will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before reaching a conclusion in the matter, one way or the other - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 10236/2022 & CM Nos.29544-45/2022 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicate upon the admissibility of declaration beyond Section 122 and Section 125 of the Finance Act. (D) Declare that interest for delayed payment of Service Tax merits waiver, under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even if entire Service Tax was paid prior to 30th June, 2019. (F) Cost of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner 5. Briefly, the grievance of the petitioner is that the declaration filed by it under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereafter referred to as 2019 Scheme ] was rejected, without according any opportunity of hearing. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had delayed the payment of service tax for the period spanning between 2013-2014 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fresh consideration, with an opportunity of hearing. 9.1. Mr Gupta says that the instant writ petition can be treated as a representation of the petitioner by respondent no.3/Designated Committee. 10. Mr Singla says that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 11. However, in our opinion, Mr Gupta is right, to the extent that there is nothing stated in the e-mail dated 05.03.2020, as to whether or not the impact of the circulars dated 25.09.2019 and 29.10.2019 was taken into account, before respondent no.3/Designated Committee concluded that the declaration made by the petitioner deserved to be rejected. 11.1. Given this position and having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the matter needs a fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
