9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LDRS Scheme and rejection of the same by the respondents by issuing the impugned communication is clearly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law as well as the provisions of the said Scheme and the same deserves to be quashed - since the petitioner would be entitled to waiver of 50% of the sum of Rs.53,88,248/- is Rs.26,94,124/-, the sum of Rs.50,50,277/- which is already admitted/quantified and paid by him would be far in excess of the said 50% is Rs.26,94,124/-. Contention of the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme in view of discrepancy between the admitted/quantified amount and the amount shown in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be accepted. Petition allowed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR PETITIONER (BY SRI.DESHPANDE ASHOK ARVIND RAO, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs; A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or a direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order bearing C.No. IV/16/833/2019 Adjn BNW, dt.06.05.2020 passed by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-N and hold that the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the amount payable by the petitioner had not stood quantified as on 30.06.2019 and consequently, in view of the Board Circular issued by the respondents as can be seen from Annexure-N, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the said Scheme. Having rejected the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have proceeded to pass an order on 05.03.2021, which is also assailed in the present petition. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites my attention to the order of this Court in the case of M/s. Bioneeds India (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Tax Others passed in W.P.No.15497/2021 dated 26.08.2022 in order to contend that this Court has come to categorical conclusion that the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme would be applicable even when an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the Assessee so long as there is an admission and quantification of the amount payable by the petitioner prior to 30.06.2019. It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders at Annexure-N and R deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in addition to reiterating the various c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the introduction of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (for short the SVLDR scheme ), the petitioner submitted a declaration dated 28.12.2019 seeking benefit of waiver under the said SVLDR Scheme. After providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on 05.02.2020, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order / letter dated 08.05.2020 rejecting the application of the petitioner under SVLDR scheme, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The material on record discloses that a perusal of the impugned order / letter will indicate that the sole ground on which the application of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the SVLDR Scheme, was that the investigation initiated against the petitioner was not completed as on 30.06.2019 and consequently, petitioner was not eligible under the SVLDR Scheme. In this context, it is relevant to state that as can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SVLDR scheme and as such, the impugned order / letter deserves to be quashed. 7. A perusal of Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme will clearly indicate that the scheme was applicable even when an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the petitioner assessee on or before 30.06.2019. in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the enquiry / investigation against the petitioner was pending as on 30.06.2019 even according to the respondents as can be seen from the impugned order / letter and consequently, on this ground also, the impugned letter / order deserves to be quashed and the mater remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned letter / communication / order at Annexure A dated 08.05.2020 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh bearing in mind the observations made in this order as well as the SVLDR Scheme and the circular dated 27.08.2019 in accordance with law. 10. As can be seen from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r would be entitled to waiver of 50% of the sum of Rs.53,88,248/- is Rs.26,94,124/-, the sum of Rs.50,50,277/- which is already admitted/quantified and paid by him would be far in excess of the said 50% is Rs.26,94,124/-. Contention of the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme in view of discrepancy between the admitted/quantified amount and the amount shown in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be accepted. 15. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the order in original was not stayed by any Forum or Authority and that it was not a fit case for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is relevant to state that the impugned order in original dated 05.03.2021 was passed by respondent No.6 only after issuing the impugned order/letter dated 06.05.2020 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the SVLDRS Scheme and consequently, merely because the order was not stayed, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to hold that the present petition was not maintainable before this Court, particularly, when the impugned order-in-original dated 05.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
