Remanded

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2022WP/9745/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The rejection reason referred to another entity's fraud without explaining disqualification. The court held a designated committee with a personal hearing and reasoned notice must reassess the matter.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of declaration quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration by a designated committee with personal hearing and reasoned order.

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani Vs Union of India and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2022.09.13 14:31:03 +0530 1 (420) wp-9745.21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9745 OF 2021

¶4

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani: Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and ors. : Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Ashok Singh for Petitioner.
Mr.Ram Ochani i/by Mr. Karan Adik for Respondents

¶6

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER 2022.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1Petitioner is upset with rejection of his declaration Form-I filed
under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (“the
SVLDRS).

¶10

2The primary ground that Mr. Singh raised is, the reason for

¶11

rejection has been given as under :-

¶12

“Rejected in view of Para 39 to 41 of the subject SCN”

¶13

3We agree with Mr. Singh that this rejection reason makes no

¶14

sense. Para 39 to 41 of the show cause notice only refers to one M/s. Star
Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. availed fraudulent Cenvat credit on the

¶15

lgc

¶16

1/3

¶17

2 (420) wp-9745.21.doc

¶18

Cenvatable Invoices issued by firm of which Petitioner was a partner. How
does that make Petitioner disqualified person under Section 125(1) of
SVLDRS is not explained. An affidavit in reply is filed of someone who was
not member of designated committee.

¶19

4In our view, the said person cannot explain what prevailed in
the mind of the members of the designated committee when they decided
to reject Petitioner’s declaration.

¶20

5Therefore, we quash and set aside rejection order and remand
the matter back for Respondents to form designated committee who shall
consider Petitioner’s declaration once again and pass such order as they
deem fit.

¶21

6If the freshly designated committee is inclined to reject the
declaration, then the said committee shall give reasons why they are
rejecting the declaration. If the declaration is going to be rejected, then
personal hearing shall be given to Petitioner with at least seven days
advance notice before passing any order.

¶22

7Any order of rejection shall be a well reasoned order.

¶23

lgc

¶24

2/3

¶25

3 (420) wp-9745.21.doc

¶26

8 Petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.

¶27

9 We have not made any observations on the merits of the

¶28

matter.

¶29

(A. S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶30

(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶31

lgc

¶32

3/3

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haresh Govindram Abhichandani v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rbl Bank Ltd. ( Earlier Known as the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. ) Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sai Kripa Confectioneries Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Homes 4 U Realtors Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Gupta and Anr. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Shailesh Gupta and Ors. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Ors.