9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he challenge in this intra Court appeal is to an order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition No. 12853/2020 filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraph No.7 as under: "7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Communication at Annexure-A dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed. (iii) The concerned respondents are hereby directed to issue Form No. 3 in terms of Form No. 2 dated 29.11.2019 issued by them to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) upon receipt of the said Form No. 3 by the respondents, the petitioner shall make payment of the said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure-S) is ultra vires sections 126 and 127 of the Finance Act, 2019, to the extend that it enables a rejection of an application under the SVLDRS Scheme to be communicated through physical communication addressed to the declarant; and 5. Pass any other order/directions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It is a conceded position that, the respondent herein had sought the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) (in short, 'the SVLDR') Scheme Rules. 2019 by filling an application Form No. 1 on 23.09.2019. 4. The appellants herein issued Form No. 2 in the prescribed format on 29.11.2019 to the respondent. Pursuant thereto, the respondent submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services provided. 8. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants is, the Audit Enquiry dated 02.07.2018 is not a final audit report but only preliminary views and it cannot be construed, as a Final Audit Report (in short 'FAR') in terms of the Board Circular. The submission is also that, the learned Single Judge could not have allowed the writ petition by holding that, the SVLDRS Committee did not follow the principle of natural justice and the communication dated 30.01.2020 is an unreasoned, non-speaking and cryptic order without appreciating the facts. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, once the appellants have issued Form No. 2 and the respondent has submitted Form 2A, and the Form 2 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the cutoff date. Any objection of the appellants that resulted in the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 was beyond the cut-off date of 30.06.2019. She also highlights the fact that, the Form No. 2 having been issued by the appellants, the rejection which has been effected, could not have been done. 13. We find, that the learned Single Judge has in the impugned order given a finding that the impugned communication dated 30.01.2020 is contrary to the circular dated 12.12.2019 which is issued regarding the applicability and maintainability of the scheme. We have already reproduced the paragraph (v) on which our attention has been drawn. 14. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellants would concede to the fact that, the circular date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
