2021 (9) TMI 828 - HC - Service Tax

Denial of benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - denial on the ground that condition contained in section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 is not satisfied because there has been no quantification arrived at by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The respondents do not dispute that no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. He has fairly conceded to the suggestion of the Court that the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme may be directed to be considered afresh, keeping open all points for determination by the appropriate authority. The impugned order stands set aside. The appropriate authority shall proceed to consider the issue of eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme by extending to it an opportunity of personal hearing as early as possible, but not later than a fortnight of receipt of a copy of this order. After hearing the petitioner, a fresh order shall be passed in accordance with law and the same shall be communicated to it immediately thereafter. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against ineligibility for Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefits due to lack of quantification by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central.
Violation of principles of natural justice by not granting a hearing before declaring ineligibility.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order declaring them ineligible for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefits due to the absence of quantification by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central. The main contention was the lack of a hearing before the order was issued, violating principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the application was made upon meeting the necessary conditions for consideration under the scheme. However, no opportunity for a hearing was provided, which could have allowed the petitioner to address the ineligibility ground and potentially change the decision.

3. The respondents' senior advocate acknowledged the absence of a hearing and agreed that the petitioner's eligibility for the scheme should be reconsidered, leaving all points open for determination by the appropriate authority.

4. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the appropriate authority to reevaluate the petitioner's eligibility by granting a personal hearing within a fortnight of the court's order. A fresh decision in line with the law was mandated, with immediate communication to the petitioner post-hearing.

5. The court clarified that no opinion was given on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving all aspects open for presentation before the appropriate authority for a final decision.

6. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of without any costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing in matters affecting eligibility for government schemes.