Page 65 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] HITECH PROJECTS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 391
South proceeded to issue the Form SVLDRS-3. Mr. Shah would submit that if an
opportunity of hearing would have been given, then his clients would have been
in a position to bring it to the notice of the authority that the necessary payment
had already been made for the purpose of availing the benefit of the Scheme as a
condition precedent.
15. Mr. Shah, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ applicants in
such circumstances pray that the impugned order in the Form SVLDRS-3
(Annexure-A) to this writ application be quashed and set aside and the respond-
ents may be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants and
take a fresh decision in accordance with law.
16. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently op-
posed by Mr. Ankit Shah, the Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the re-
spondents. Mr. Shah straightaway invited the attention of this Court to the nec-
essary averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 respectively duly affirmed by the Principal Commissioner of Central
GST, Ahmedabad-South. Mr. Shah invited the attention of this Court to the
averments made in paras 15 to 19, which read as under :
“15. With regards to the total deposit of Rs. 8,92,195/- (Rs. 6,16,286/- +
Rs. 2,75,909/-) as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is observed that
the petitioner neither claimed before the adjudicating authority that they
had paid an amount of Rs. 6,16,286/- towards the demand as proposed in
the SCN dated 2-5-2016 nor the said amount was appropriated by the adju-
dicating authority in their order dated 31-3-2017. Likewise, the challans of
Rs. 2,75,909/- also could not be corelated to the said demand. Therefore, the
petitioner was offered the opportunity of personal hearing to represent
themselves, however, they have failed to produce any document which in-
dicates that the aforesaid amount claimed by them are paid towards their
liability created by the Show Cause Notice or Order-in-Original.
16. The declaration filed by the Petitioner No. 1 was held to be void on the
grounds that the case includes confiscation of goods and imposition of re-
demption fine and Section 129 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 does not
grant relief from confiscation or redemption fine. The Petitioner No. 1 was
called upon to appear for personal hearing on 26-12-2019 in the matter. The
declaration of Shri Tejas Dalal, was also not entertained on the grounds that
being co-noticee, unless the main noticee settles the issue.
17. The Petitioner has made reference of the High Court of Gujarat Inter-
im Order dated 24-12-2019 in respect of SCA No. 21744 of 2019 in case of
M/s. Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. & Others under which benefit granted to
even those declarants who have not approached this Court, subject to the
declarants filing an undertaking before the Designated Committee. Accord-
ingly, the Petitioner filed an undertaking as directed by the High Court on
26-12-2019. However, Interim Order dated 24-12-2019 of the High Court of
Gujarat was not accepted by the department and filed SLP before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is allotted Diary No. 10287 of 2020.
The case is still pending for decision before the Apex Court.
18. Further, as per Section 126 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 read with
Rule 6(1) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules,
2019 provide that the Designated Committee is required to verify the decla-
ration on the basis of the particulars furnished by the applicant as well as
the records available with the department. The Designated Committee
found that the payment particulars in respect of the deposit of
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  65