Karnataka High Court
M/S Elixir Hotels And Enterprises Pvt ... vs The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax on 21 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48202
WP No. 9135 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 9135 OF 2021 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S ELIXIR HOTELS AND
ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,
NO.135, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 025
REP BY ITS SHRI K.V.KUPPARAJU
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
MEMBER OF DESIGNATED COMMITTEE
BENGALURU EAST COMMISSIONERATE
EAST DIVISION-1, RANGE AED-1
Digitally signed BMTC BUS STAND, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
by DOMMALURU, BENGALURU-560 071
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
Court of
Karnataka MEMBER OF DESIGNATED COMMITTEE BENGALURU
EAST COMMISSIONERATE EAST DIVISION-1, RANGE-
AED-1 BMTC BUS STAND OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMMALURU BENGALURU-560 071.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
MEMBER OF DESIGNAED COMMITTEE
BENGALURU EAST COMMISSIONERATE
BMTC BUS STAND, OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMMALURU, BENGALURU-560 071.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48202
WP No. 9135 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY JOINT SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT
TAXES AND CUSTOMS ROOM NO.46,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECTION /
ORDER HOLDING THAT REJECTION OF FORM SVLDRS-1 ON
21.12.2019 (ANNX-H) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS
ARBITRARY/ ABUSE OF POWERS AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SVLDR SCHEME AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
ISSUE FORM SVLDR-4 DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER OF HIS
PENALTY LIABILITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
SINCE AS PER THE SCHEME NO FURTHER AMOUNT IS LIABLE
TO BE PAID.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in this petition, seeks the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ the nature of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order holding that rejection of Form SVLDRS-1 on 21-12-2019 (Annexure-H) filed by the Petitioner as arbitrary / abuse of powers and not in accordance with the SVLDR Scheme.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR
b) Issue of a writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Form SVLDR-4, discharging the petitioner of his penalty liability as per the provisions of the Scheme since as per the Scheme no further amount is liable to be paid;
c) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged by the petitioner and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the show cause notice dated 12.10.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax Commissionerate to the petitioner demanding service tax and other levies from the petitioner, who contested the said proceedings which culminated in an order dated 21.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay service tax together with penalty in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR petitioner . As per the said order, the last date stipulated by the Settlement Commission for payment of penalty was 26.11.2014 and the same was not paid by the petitioner.
However, upon promulgation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ('SVLDRS' for short) w.e.f. 21.12.2019 the petitioner made an application seeking waiver/exemption of penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- imposed by the Settlement Commission.
4. It is submitted that though the said Scheme would be applicable to the petitioner who would be entitled to seek waiver/exemption from payment of penalty under the SVLDRS Scheme, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order vide Annexure-H rejecting application of the petitioner on the ground that penalties as per Settlement Commission are not covered under the SVLDRS Scheme. It is submitted that by virtue of Sections 124 and 125 r/w Circular dated 27.08.2019 issued by the respondents themselves, coupled with judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR Gujarat Steel Industries vs. Union of India (2023) 11 Centax 197 (Guj), the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be granted benefit of waiver/exemption under the SVLDRS Scheme.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that SVLDRS Scheme is not applicable to imposition of penalty by the Settlement Commission and as such, the respondents were fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.
6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that except stating "penalties as per settlement of cases by Settlement Commission are not covered under the Scheme", no other reasons are assigned by the respondent for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the impugned order is clearly a cryptic, non-
speaking, unreasoned and laconic order which does not -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR assign proper or valid reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner was being rejected. In this context, it is pertinent to notice Sections 124 and 125 of the SVLDRS Scheme which read as under:
"124. (I)Subject to the conditions specified in sub- section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows:-
(a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty is,-
(i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues,
(ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues,
(b) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice for late fee or penalty only, and the amount of duty in the said notice has been paid or is nil, then, the entire amount of late fee or penalty:
(c) where the tax dues are relatable to an amount in arrears and,-
(i) the amount of duty is, rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues;
(ii) the amount of duty is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues;
(iii) in a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein the declarant has indicated an amount of duty as payable but not paid it and the duty amount indicated is,--7-
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues;
(B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues;
(d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit against the declarant and the amount quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 is-
(1) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues;
(ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues,
(e) where the tax dues are payable on account of a voluntary disclosure by the declarant, then, no relief shall be available with respect to tax dues. (2) The relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as predeposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant:
Provided that if the amount of predeposit or deposit already paid by the declarant exceeds the amount payable by the declarant, as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee, the declarant shall not be entitled to any refund.
125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely:-
(a) who have filed an appeal before the appellate forum and such appeal been heard finally on or before the 30th day of June, 2019;
(b) who have been convicted for any offence punishable under any provision of the indirect tax -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR enactment for the matter for which he intends to file a declaration;
(c) who have been issued a show cause notice, under indirect tax enactment and the final hearing has taken place on or before the 30th day of June, 2019:
(d) who have been issued a show cause notice under indirect tax enactment for an erroneous refund or refund;
(e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019:
(f) a person making a voluntary disclosure,-
(i) after being subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit; or
(ii) having filed a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein he hasindicated an amount of duty as payable, but has not paid it;
(g) who have filed an application in the Settlement Commission for settlement of a case;
(h) persons seeking to make declarations with respect to excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. (2) A declaration under sub-section (7) shall be made in such electronic form as may be prescribed."-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR
7. In addition thereto, on 27.08.2019, the respondents issued a Circular in relation to SVLDRS Scheme wherein Clause 10(f) reads as under:
10(f) - Section 125(g) excludes the cases where an application has been made before the Settlement Commission for settlement. However, in many such cases, proceedings before the Commission may abate due to reasons such as rejection of the application by the Commission or due to order of the Commission not being passed within the prescribed time etc. It is clarified that all such cases which are outside the purview of the Settlement Commission shall be covered under the Scheme under the relevant category of adjudication or appeal or arrears as the case may be provided the eligibility is otherwise established under this Schem. Further, any pending appeals, reference or writ petition filed against or any arrears emerging out of the orders of Settlement Commission are also eligible under the Scheme.
8. In Gujarat Steel Industries case referred supra, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held as under:
"1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR "(A)That Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition.
(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside orders of the Designated Committee (Annexure-I & J) issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, thereby directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to treat the declarations / applications filed by the petitioners under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, as valid declaration;
(C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to accept the declarations filed by the petitioners, which have been rejected vide Orders submitted at Annexure-I & J to the Petition and further directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to issue 'Statement of estimated amount payable by the petitioner in the Scheme' in Form SVLDRS-3 under Section 127 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and thereafter, on payment of the estimated amount by the petitioner no.1, to issue Discharge Certificates in Form SVLDRS-4 under Section 127(8) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4;
(D) Such Further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice;"
2. Facts of the present case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm, having place of business at Near Bhikshuk Gruh, Vallabh Nagar, Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR 382410. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, during the period around 1995-96, were the Partners of petitioner no.1 firm namely Gujarat Steel Industries. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have retired from the partnership firm Gujarat Steel Industries and Smt. Rajudevi Vijaysingh Bafna has been admitted as a partner in the said firm with effect from 31.03.2011. Subsequently, Smt. Rajudevi Vijaysingh Bafna also retired as Partner of the firm w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the partnership firm was dissolved on 01.04.2023 and thereafter Gujarat Steel Industries became the proprietary firm and its proprietor is petitioner no.2.
2.2 The petitioner no.1 was a Small Scale Industry, engaged in manufacture of goods like M.S. Round Bars, which were excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2.3 The petitioner no.1 being a Small Scale Industry, was eligible for SSI exemption of Notification No. 1/1993-CE dated 28.02.1993 issued under the Central Excises Act, 1944, and accordingly, the petitioner no.1 availed the benefit of said Notification during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and no Central Excise duty was paid by the petitioner no.1 during these two years.
2.4 The Central Excise authorities conducted inquiries and investigation against the petitioner no.1 in September, 1995 which resulted in issuance of show cause notice F. No. V.72/15-156/ OA/95 dated 08.03.1996 wherein total Central Excise duty of Rs. 39,65,667/-(Rs. 39,40,861/-+ Rs. 24,806/-) was demanded from the petitioner, besides proposing imposition of penalty and confiscation of seized goods. Action was also proposed against the petitioner No. 2 to 4.
2.5 The petitioners and other noticees of the aforesaid show cause notice participated in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR departmental adjudication proceedings, which resulted in passing of the Order-in-Original No. 42/Commr/Ahd-I/97-98 dated 27.2.1998 (issued on 29.5.1998) wherein duty demand of Rs. 39,65,667/- (Rs. 39,40,861/-+ Rs. 24,806/-) was confirmed against petitioner no.1, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner no.1 and goods seized at the premises of the petitioner no.1 were ordered to be confiscated, however, the said goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a Redemption Fine of Rs. 22,500/-in lieu of confiscation. Penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/-each was imposed on petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. three partners of petitioner no.1. Penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/-was also imposed on M/s. Janta Steel Traders and Penalty of Rs. 1,40,000/-was imposed on M/s. Shalin Corporation and Goods seized at the premises of M/s. Shalin Corporation were also ordered to be confiscated, however, these goods were allowed to be redeemed by M/s. Shalin Corporation on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/-.
2.6 Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal, Bombay (CEGAT), against the said Order-in-Original.
2.7 During the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble CEGAT, provisions for the Customs and Central Excise, Settlement Commission were introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 32PA was also introduced with effect from 12.5.2000 providing that any person who had filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on or before 29.2.2000 and which was pending would also be entitled to make an application to the Settlement Commission to have his case settled.
2.8 The petitioners, after withdrawing the appeal from the Hon'ble CEGAT, filed application before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Petitioner no.1
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR initially admitted duty liability of Rs. 15,44,914/-. During the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, the petitioner no.1 revised the accepted duty liability to Rs. 39,40,861/-, thereby accepting the entire duty demand raised in show cause notice and confirmed in Order-in- Original, but also claimed the benefit of Modvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 23,45,006/-.
2.9 The learned Settlement Commission passed Final Order No. 12/CEX/2002 dated 24.5.2002 and settled the case of the petitioner no.1 at duty of Rs. 32,17,340/-and penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh. A fine of Rs. 25,000/-in lieu of confiscation of goods was also imposed on the petitioner no.1. Payment of interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. 13,96,800/-deposited by the petitioner no.1, when the case was pending before the CEGAT was also ordered, while allowing adjustment of the said deposit towards the finally settled amount of Rs. 32,17,340/-. Penalties of Rs. 1 Lakh each were imposed on petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, i.e. three partners of the petitioner no.1 firm.
2.10 The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 132 of the Finance (No.
2) Act, 2019, made the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 vide Notification No. 5/2019-Central Excise (NT) dated 21.8.2019.
2.11 The Central Government, vide Notification No. 4/2019-Central Excise (NT) dated 21.08.2019 appointed 01.09.2019 as the date on which the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 would come into force.
2.12 The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed separate applications on 14.10.2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, in the prescribed Form SVLDRS-1. Petitioner no. 4 could not file application due to some technical glitches in the system for filing application SVLDRS. The
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR member of the Designated Committee issued a notice dated 13.11.2019 to the petitioner no.1.
2.13 The member of the Designated Committee also issued separate notices dated 13.11.2019 to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.
2.14 The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Designated Committee on the date and time fixed for personal hearing on 19.11.2019 and also submitted written reply to the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019, inter-alia, pleading that the Redemption Fine of Rs. 25,000/-has already been paid by the petitioner no.1 vide TR-6 Challan, there was no amount of Redemption Fine pending for recovery against the petitioner, as such, the question of granting of relief from confiscation and Redemption Fine did not arise in the case of the petitioner no.1. It was, therefore, requested that the application of the petitioner under SVLDRS may be considered and processed further.
2.15 The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 also appeared before the Designated Committee on the date and time fixed for Personal Hearing on 19.11.2019 and also submitted written reply to the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019, inter-alia pleading that the provisions of Section 124(1)(b) of the Finance (No.
2) Act, 2019 do not provide any condition that the co-noticee can't avail the benefits of the scheme till such time that the duty demand is not settled by the main noticee.
2.16 The Designated Committee rejected the applications filed by the petitioner no.1 in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 14.10.2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remarks 'Confiscation and decided by Settlement Commission'. The Designated Committee also rejected the applications filed by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 14.10.2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR remarks 'Co-noticee, main noticee involves confiscation'.
2.17 The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 again filed applications and petitioner No. 4 also filed an application on 06.12.2019, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2.18 The petitioners appeared before the Designated Committee on the date and time fixed for Personal Hearing on 26.12.2019 and also submitted written replies to the show cause notices dated 26.12.2019. 2.19 The Designated Committee, however, rejected the application of the petitioner no.1 in Form SVLDRS-1 vide ARN LD0612190001621 on the ground of ineligibility by stating that the application is not eligible under Section 125(1) (g). As per Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely who have filed an application in the Settlement Commission for settlement of a case.
3. Mr.Kaivan Dastoor learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the application before the Settlement Commission has been decided. No application of the petitioners was pending with the Hon'ble Settlement Commission when the petitioners filed applications under SVLDR Scheme. As per the SVLDR Scheme and clarifications and directions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs in this regard, the cases which are pending before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission are not eligible under SVLDR Scheme. Therefore, the decision of the Designated Committee to reject the application of the petitioner no.1 under SVLDR Scheme under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No.
2) Act, 2019, even though the case of the petitioner no.1 was not pending before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR 3.1. Mr.Dastoor further submitted that the petitioner no.1 and other petitioners are not ineligible under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.
3.2. Mr.Dastoor would submit that the applications filed by the petitioners, specifically by petitioner no.1 before the learned Settlement Commission is not pending. The Settlement Commission had issued Final Order No. 12/CEX/2002 dated 24.5.2002. Learned Settlement Commission, vide Order No. 3/SC/CE/ 2004 dated 20.7.2004 also disposed of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 11961 of 2006 filed by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court against the order of the learned Settlement Commission was rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 16.7.2008. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 25380 of 2008 filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.10.2008. Thus, the case or the application of the petitioners is not pending before the learned Settlement Commission. Therefore, the application of the petitioner no.1 is not ineligible under Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Parth Divyeshwar learned advocate for the respondents would submit that Section 125(1)(g) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 simply stipulates that the person who has filed an application in the Settlement Commission is not eligible to make a declaration under the scheme .
4.1. Mr.Divyeshwar would further submit that in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed an application before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the case and therefore he is not eligible to make the declaration under the scheme in terms of the above provisions of law. As regards the reliance on the Board's clarifications and directions is concerned, the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR same is misplaced for the reason that the Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.8.2019 clarifies that only those applications which have been rejected by the Settlement Commission is eligible for SVLDR Scheme.
ANALYSIS
5. The reasons for rejecting the application apparently was the ground that the issue was pending before the Settlement Commission. In the perception of the respondents, the petitioner no.1 was held ineligible in light of Section 125(1) (g) of the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2019. The stand of the respondents is misconceived. Though the petitioners had filed application before the Settlement Commission, the said application was already decided by the Settlement Commission in the year 2002. The Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs, has, by a circular dated 27.08.2019 clarified as under:
"10(f) Section 125(g) excludes the cases where an application has been filed before the Settlement Commission for settlement. However, in many such cases, proceedings before the Commission may abate due to reasons such as rejection of the application by the Commission or due to order of the Commission not being passed within the prescribed time etc. It is clarified that all such cases which are outside the purview of the Settlement Commission shall be covered under the Scheme under the relevant category of adjudication or appeal or arrears as the case may be provided the eligibility is otherwise established under this Scheme. Further, any pending appeals, reference or writ petition filed against or any arrears emerging out of the orders of Settlement Commission are also eligible under the Scheme."
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR
6. Reading the same in its entirety it indicates that when there are arrears emerging out of orders of the Settlement Commission, the assessee is eligible under the scheme.
7. Therefore though no appeal or reference were pending, here was a case where the Settlement Commission had passed a Final Order on 24.05.2002. MA was also disposed of on 20.07.2004, thus no case was pending. Even reading of the communication dated 06.03.2020 under the RTI Act would reveal that the benefit of the circular particularly para 10 has been extended to others. Once we hold that the petitioner no.1 was entitled to the benefit of the scheme, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 would automatically be held entitled to the benefit thereof.
8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the declarations filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 and issue consequential statements of estimated amount payable in Form SVL DRS-3 and on payment of the estimated amount by petitioner no.1 issue discharge certificates in Form SVLPRS-4 to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4."
9. The aforesaid statutory provisions, Circular and the judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarath High Court has not been considered by the respondents before passing the impugned order and consequently, I am of the view that the non-consideration of the aforesaid statutory provisions, Circular and judgment of the High Court of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR Gujarat warrants interference of this Court in the present petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for consideration afresh in accordance with law, to the concerned respondents.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 21.12.2029 passed by the respondents at Annexure-H is hereby set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent/s for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law bearing in mind Sections 124 and 125 of the SVLDRS Scheme, Clause 10(f) of the Circular dated 27.08.2019 and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Steel Industries vs. Union of India (2023) 11 Centax 197 (Guj) and in accordance with law.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48202 WP No. 9135 of 2021 HC-KAR iv. The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents, pleadings, etc., which shall be considered by the respondents, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BSV-List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15