Page 94 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

28 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
by the Designated Committee along with personal hearing of the petitioner. The
petitioner’s contention is that both the applications which were filed by the peti-
tioner are on the same footing and therefore it is arbitrary and unjust for the re-
spondent authorities to allow in one and reject the other. The petitioner submits
that the same is in violation and in conflict with the provisions of the scheme and
therefore contrary to the very purpose of the scheme for which it was introduced
by the Government of India.
9. The petitioners also question the rejection of his application form to
be violative of the Rules framed for implementing the schemes. Accordingly the
present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for setting aside and
quashing the rejection of the petitioner’s application for relief under the scheme
and a further direction the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to be
afforded an opportunity of being heard.
10. Mr. S.C. Keyal, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that
on similar issues a Coordinate Bench has already disposed of a similar writ peti-
tion being W.P. (C) No. 2149/2020 passed in Assam Cricket Association v. The Un-
ion of India & 4 Ors. [2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 579 (Gau.)] Mr. Keyal submits that by this
order this Hon’ble Court has remanded the matter back to the authorities con-
cerned.
11. Mr. Sharma Learned Counsel for the petitioners is in agreement
with the submissions made by Mr. Keyal that the present writ petition can also
be disposed of vide the order dated 25-2-2020 in passed in WP (C) No.
2149/2020. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21-12-2019 (Annexure-K) is
set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the
application/declaration furnished by the petitioner being ARN
LD2112190002384, dated 21-12-2019 and pass appropriate orders thereon in
terms of the scheme and the rules framed thereunder. If the authorities require a
fresh declaration then they shall permit the petitioner to file such declaration
afresh.
12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the respondent au-
thorities are directed to pass required order on the application/declaration sub-
mitted by the writ petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of the
receipt of the certified copy of this order.
13. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. No order as to Cost.
_______
2020 (40) G.S.T.L. 28 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C. Saravanan, J.
S.J. MOVERS
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM
W.P. No. 39960 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015, decided on 11-2-2020
Writ jurisdiction - Alternate remedy, availability of - Quantification of
demand under Supply of Tangible Goods head disputed - Petitioner arguing

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  110