Allowed

M/S. Thinkhigh Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Audit-I Commissionerate

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2022WP/12853/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition where a communication rejecting an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was quashed for violating natural justice. The Court directed the authority to issue Form No.3 within 15 days and subsequently issue a discharge certificate upon payment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 31.01.2020 was quashed; respondents directed to issue Form No.3 within 15 days and Discharge Certificate within two weeks of payment.

M/S. Thinkhigh Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Audit-I Commissionerate — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12853 OF 2020 (T-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. THINKHIGH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY SWAFE BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD) D-1204, MANTRI GREENS, 1 SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VASHISHT DIRECTOR

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . AUDIT-I COMMISSIONERATE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC, BANASHANKARI,

¶11

BENGALURU-560070 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THEME BASED AUDIT GROUP

¶12

2 . DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE

¶13

BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT

¶14

NO.112, SP ENCLAVE, ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶15

3 . DESIGNATED COMMITTEE - SVLDRS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶16

JOINT COMMISSIONER, MEMBER, DC-1

¶17

SVLDRS

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. VANITHA K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

²

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-3 DTD.31.1.2020 COMMUNICATING REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE SCHEME ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶25

a) Set aside letter issued by the third respondent vide C.No.IV/06/16/2019-SVLDRS-HPU-BS/228/2020 dated 31.01.2020 communicating rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under the Scheme (Annexure – A);

¶26

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order, directing the third respondent to extend the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 to the petitioner by issuing Form – 3 and allowing the petitioner to make the payment of the amount indicated therein;

¶27

c) Set aside the Show Cause Notice C.No.V/16/201920/BZU-3297/2020 dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure – B) and Show Cause Notice C.No.V/16/2019-20/BZU3298/2020 dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure – B1) issued by the second respondent as they are barred under the Scheme and are bad in law;

¶28

d) Declare that para 2(i) of Circular No.1072/05/2019-CX issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure – Q) is ultra vires Sections 126 and 127 of the Finance Act, 2019,

¶29

³

¶30

to the extent that it enables a rejection of an application under the SVLDR Scheme to be communicated through physical communication addressed to the declarant; and

¶31

e) Pass any other order / directions as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

The material on record discloses that pursuant to the petitioner filing an application in Form No.1 on 23.09.2019 to avail the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (for short, ‘the SVLDR Scheme’), respondent No.3 issued Form No.2 in the prescribed format on 29.11.2019 to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted Form 2A as can be seen from Annexure – M dated 03.12.2019. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner being ready and willing to pay the amount notified in Form No.2 for availing the benefit of the aforesaid scheme, respondent No.3 have proceeded to issue the impugned Communication at Annexure – A dated 31.01.2020

¶34

⁴

¶35

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶37

respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned Communication at Annexure – A will clearly indicate that the same is violative of principles of natural justice, in as much as no reason or sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the said Communication. The impugned Communication is also unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned Communication deserves to be quashed. So also, a perusal of the impugned Communication will indicate that the same is contrary to the Circular dated 12.12.2019, issued regarding applicability and maintainability of the aforesaid SVLDR scheme.

¶39

⁵

¶40

6. Under these circumstances, I am of the

¶41

considered opinion that the impugned Communication at Annexure – A deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of SVLDR Scheme in favour of the petitioner.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Petition is hereby allowed . (ii) The impugned Communication at Annexure - A dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed.

¶45

(iii) The concerned respondents are hereby directed to issue Form No.3 in terms of Form No.2 dated 29.11.2019 issued by them to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

(iv) Upon receipt of the said Form No.3 by the respondents, the petitioner shall make payment of the said amount within

¶47

⁶

¶48

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of Form No.3 to be issued by the respondents.

¶49

(v) Immediately upon the petitioner making of payment of the amount shown in Form No.3 to be issued by the respondents, respondents shall issue the Discharge Certificate in Form No.4 in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of payment.

¶50

(vi) Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands allowed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

M/S. Thinkhigh Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Audit-I Commissionerate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Thinkhigh Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Audit-I Commissionerate

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

Sri C Jayaramu Vs the Mysore Acetate and Chemicals

The Commissioner Vs J Ramesh

Primary Co. Operative Agricultural Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Azeez Khan Vs the Joint Registrar of

M/S Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sham Rao Anil Kumar Vs Union of India