Page 66 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

392 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
Rs. 8,27,382.91, as claimed by the petitioner, were not available in the de-
partment records and therefore, the Designated Committee had issued
Form SVLDRS-2 under Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 on 28-4-2020 to the Peti-
tioner whereby estimated amount payable was indicated of Rs. 8,27,382.91
and in terms of the provisions of Section 127(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act,
2019, a personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 7-5-2020. In response,
the petitioner filed the SVLDRS-2A on 6-5-2020 in which submitted that
they do not desire an adjournment which implies that they would attend
the personal hearing scheduled on 7-5-2020. However, they did not appear
before the Designated Committee on the scheduled date and time for a per-
sonal hearing.
19. The petitioner failed to appear for personal hearing on the scheduled
date and time and then on the basis of available records, the Designated
Committee issued Form SVLDRS-3 under Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 by
complying all the provisions of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution)
Scheme, 2019 in which directed to the petitioner to pay estimated amount
of Rs. 8,27,382.91.”
17. According to Mr. Ankit Shah, there is nothing on record to indicate
that the writ applicants have made the total deposit of Rs. 8,92,195/- as asserted
for the purpose of availing the benefit of the Scheme. He would submit that alt-
hough an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the writ applicants, yet
the same was not availed. The writ applicants failed to appear before the con-
cerned authority.
18. The aforesaid stance of the respondents is rebutted by the writ ap-
plicants in the form of an affidavit in rejoinder. In para 9 of the affidavit in re-
joinder, the following averments have been made :
“9. That the Petitioner was called for the personal hearing on 7-5-2020,
which was the time, entire India was in complete lockdown situation and
Petitioner’s office was completely closed. Even the Respondent office must
be closed during these days and therefore, there was no question of grant-
ing personal hearing on 7-5-2020. The Petitioner was conscious about the
situation and therefore requested to grant personal/”e-hearing”. If the an-
swering respondent wanted to complete the process in lockdown situation
then fair opportunity of hearing should be granted to the Petitioner but
they knew that no one will come for personal hearing and they can straight
away decide the matter. If the answering respondent really wanted to de-
cide fairly then they could have send email for the clarification that there is
no facility available for the “e- hearing” but they kept the petitioner in dark
and directly issue Form SVLDRS-3. When the Hon’ble Courts and many
Government offices were working on Virtual Platform, why can’t respond-
ent office work on virtual platform and stick to personal hearing. As a mat-
ter of fact, instance of personal hearing is contrary to the direction issued by
the Central Government during Lockdown period. This approach of the
Respondent clearly shows how perverse attitude of the authorities just to
frustrate the interest of the Petitioner.”
19. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the writ
applicants could not be said to have got a fair opportunity of hearing before the
concerned respondent. We are at one with Mr. Dhaval Shah, the Learned Coun-
sel appearing for the writ applicants that the concerned respondent could not
have fixed the personal hearing during the period of lockdown. We are of the
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  66