Full Text
W.P.(C) 10236/2022 & CM Nos.29544-45/2022
DELTA GUARDS PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr Bharat Bhushan Gupta and Ms Nidhi Gupta, Advs.
Through: Mr Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr Adarsh Kumar Gupta and Mr Keshav
Mann, Advs. for R-1.
Mr Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Yatharth Singh, Adv. for R-2 & 3.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.29545/2022
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 10236/2022 & CM No.29544/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
2.1. Mr Aditya Singla accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.[2] and 3. Likewise, Mr Adarsh Kumar Gupta accepts notice on behalf of respondent 2022:DHC:2532-DB no.1/Union of India (UOI).
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows: “(A) Declare the Petitioner as eligible for the benefits of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and/or (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to re-consider the declaration filed by the petitioner as per law and following the principles of natural justice.
(C) Declare the Designated Committee Constituted under Sabka
Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 is not empowered to 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 to 2017-2018 (up to June 2018). 6.[1] Consequently, upon notice being issued in that behalf, the petitioner deposited the amount payable towards service tax. Since there was a delay in the deposit of the amount towards service tax, liability towards interest arose qua the petitioner.
6.2. The letter dated 29.05.2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Vasant Kunj Division, pegged the interest payable by the petitioner at Rs 42,06,417/-.
7. It is towards the interest liability amounting to Rs 42,06,417/-, that a declaration under the 2019 Scheme was filed by the petitioner, in form SVLDRS-1, on 09.01.2020.
7.2. Respondent no.3, i.e., the Designated Committee, has admittedly, rejected the aforesaid declaration. A communication in that behalf, was received by the petitioner via e-mail, on 05.03.2020.
7.3. The petitioner appears to have submitted representations thereafter, on 04.06.2020 and 03.12.2021.
8. Mr Bharat Bhushan Gupta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that since the tax liability had been defrayed before 30.06.2019, if the declaration is accepted by respondent no.3/Designated Committee, then the entire liability towards interest will get effaced.
8.1. In support of this plea, Mr Bhushan relies upon the circulars dated 25.09.2019 and 29.10.2019.
9. On being queried, Mr Bhushan says that, notwithstanding the reliefs sought, the petitioner will be quite satisfied, if the matter is remitted to respondent no.3/Designated Committee for 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 examination by respondent no.3/Designated Committee.
12. Accordingly, the communication dated 05.03.2020 is set aside so that declaration made can be reexamined.
12.1. 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.
12.2. To hasten the process, respondent no.3/Designated Committee will treat the above-captioned writ petition as a representation.
13. Furthermore, respondent no.3/Designated Committee will serve a written notice on the petitioner, as regards the date, time and venue, at which the authorized representative of the petitioner will be heard, in support of its case.
13.1. Respondent no.3/Designated Committee will be at liberty to accord hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner via videoconferencing. In case such modality is adopted, a link will be sent to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
15. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 8, 2022 Click here to check corrigendum, if any