Page 67 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] EUREKA FABRICATORS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 393
view that one opportunity should be given to the writ applicants to put forward
their case before the concerned respondent in person.
20. We do not propose to go into the merits of the various issues raised
as regards the claim to avail the benefit under the Scheme. We are of the view
that all the relevant aspects of the matter should be explained by the writ appli-
cants before the concerned respondent in person.
21. In the result, the impugned communication in Form SVLDRS-3 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No. 3
herein i.e. the Designated Committee, Ahmedabad-South for fresh hearing on the
issues in question. The respondent No. 3 shall fix a particular date of personal
hearing and intimate the same in writing to the writ applicants. The writ appli-
cants upon receipt of such intimation shall appear before the respondent No. 3
and make their submissions. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 shall pass a fresh
order in accordance with law.
21.1 Let this entire exercise be undertaken at the earliest and shall be
completed in any case within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of
the writ of this order. We are conscious of the fact that the time period to make
the deposit of the requisite amount for the purpose of availing the benefit under
The Scheme came to an end on 30-6-2020. The stance of the writ applicants is that
they have made the requisite payment towards deposit, whereas, the stance of
the Department is that the amount has not been deposited. Ultimately, it is for
the Department to verify from the records available with them as regards the
amount deposited by the writ applicants way back in 2015-16. In the event ulti-
mately if some amount has to be deposited, then despite the time limit having
expired the Department shall accept the payment in view of the fact that this liti-
gation was pending before this Court.
22. With the aforesaid directions, this writ application stands disposed
of.

_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 393 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.K. Tated and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
EUREKA FABRICATORS PVT. LTD.

Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2019, decided on 30-6-2020
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Disputed
Tax Amount payable thereunder - Quantification of - Prima facie, quantifica-
tion of disputed amount payable as done by designated Committee in im-
pugned order in SVLDRS-3 Form, is incorrect inasmuch as amount of deposits
made during investigations have not been deducted on the ground of it being
accepted liability whereas petitioner had resorted to appeal proceedings
against entire SCN - Further, said quantification has been done without hear-
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  67