1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51929/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN :
M/S. KIRAN BOREWELLS 179, 2ND MAIN, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 (REP. BY PROPRIETOR JYOTHI KULKARNI D/O KRISHNA RAO MUTAGI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHIDANANDA URS B.G., ADV.) AND :
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (SVLRDS) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST WEST COMMISSINERATE BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU – 560 070.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE WEST COMMISSIONERATE BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU – 560 070.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.10.2019 ISSUED BY R-2 WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE – F AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the communication (Annexure – F) dated 24.10.2019, issued by respondent No.2, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019), has been rejected mainly on the ground that the designated committee after due consideration of the definition of the word “quantified” as provided under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 observed that as the tax dues were not intimated, therefore, the same was not quantified for the period involved.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that unilateral decision taken by respondent No.2 is against the principles of natural justice. It was argued that in terms of the show cause notice dated 21/10/2019 issued to the petitioner, it was made clear that the communication vide letter dated 13/11/2018 was made to the assessee intimating him to pay the tax liability along with the applicable interest and penalty which was followed by another letter dated 29/01/2019 and on continuous follow up with the assessee, the assessee has paid the amounts to certain extent and sought time to make the balance liability. The said communication has not been considered by the respondent No.2, while rejecting the application of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the revenue made an endeavour to justify the order impugned at Annexure-F.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the order impugned dated 24/10/2019 is the unilateral decision taken by respondent No.2 sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any order passed by the quasi judicial authority adversely affecting the rights of the parties should be strictly in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his explanation/reply to the application.
5. Accordingly, Annexure-F dated 24/10/2019 is quashed. The matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.2 to re-consider the matter. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 23/12/2019 without waiting for any notice and putforth his explanation/submission. Respondent No.2 shall re-consider the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law, in an expedite manner. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu