Your Fitness Club Pvt Ltd (Yfc) vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6242 Bom

                                                                               14a. os wpl 10534-21.doc

R.M. AMBERKAR
 (Private Secretary)
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                         O.O.C.J.


                                        WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10534 OF 2021

                       M/s. Your Fitness Club Pvt Ltd                    .. Petitioner
                                  Versus
                       The Union of India & Ors.                         .. Respondents
                                                    ....................
                        Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava a/w Mr. Saurabh Mashelkar for Petitioner
                        Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
                                                     ...................

                                                    CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
                                                            MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

                                                    DATE          : JULY 04, 2022
                       P.C.:

1. Petitioner is impugning Form No. SVLDRS-3 that was issued to

petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme

2019 (SVLDRS) formulated under section 127 of the Finance ( No. 2)

Act, 2019.

2. Petitioner had filed a declaration dated 28.12.2019 under

SVLDRS. This was in view of a show-cause-notice dated 13.12.2006

that petitioner had received demanding a duty of Rs. 5,07,22,977/-.

During pendency of the show-cause-notice, petitioner had made pre-

deposit of Rs. 2,53,61488.50. As per the declaration, the tax dues less

tax reliefs, payable by the petitioner was stated to be 'NIL' by

petitioner.

1 of 4 14a. os wpl 10534-21.doc

3. It is petitioner's case that thereafter petitioner did not hear

anything from auto generated system. Petitioner made various efforts

to find out and petitioner did not get a very positive response.

Annexed to the petition is also a copy of Form No. SVLDRS-2 dated

14.02.2020 and response to Form No. SVLDRS-2 being Form No.

SVLDRS-2A dated 25.02.2020. In Form No. SVLDRS-2, the designated

committee has determined an amount of Rs. 69,70,457.00 as payable

by petitioner and called upon petitioner to confirm and if petitioner

did not agree with the amount estimated, then petitioner can appear

for a personal hearing before the committee.

4. Mr. Ochani submitted that petitioner has accepted the estimate

amount payable communicated in Form No. SVLDRS-2 and referred to

in Form No. SVLDRS-2A filed by petitioner in the petition where

petitioner states 'Yes' to the estimate.

5. Mr. Shrivastava states that though From No. SVLDRS-3 is dated

13.03.2020, petitioner never received Form No. SVLDRS-3 but only

received an email without indicating any amount.

6. Petitioner has averred in the petition that petitioner was logged

out / was unable to access the portal and that even any email / sms /

intimation was not received by petitioner.

2 of 4 14a. os wpl 10534-21.doc

7. We have considered the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr. Milind

Gawai, the Principal Commissioner of CTST & Central Excise, Mumbai

affirmed on 28.06.2021. In the affidavit-in-reply, respondents do not

deny petitioner's allegation that petitioner never received any email /

sms / intimation or petitioner was logged out. According to the

affiant, designated committee has no role to play in issuance of

email / sms since it is system generated in an automated manner with

minimal human intervention. The affiant has also suggested what

petitioner could have done and that the designated committee has not

taken any steps to block any account. What is important to note is the

fact that petitioner had a serious problem in accessing the portal has

not been denied. Petitioner has also annexed screen shots of the

portal when petitioner made attempts to find out status of the

declaration.

8. In fact, petitioner has strangely even received a message that no

taxpayer was found in the credentials or the PAN number mentioned

therein. We find that there was serious problem in the portal

otherwise if such taxpayer was not found, petitioner should not have

even received a show-cause-notice in the first place.

9. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter,

3 of 4 14a. os wpl 10534-21.doc

in our view, interest of justice requires that we make limited

interference. We set aside Form No. SVLDRS-3 dated 13.03.2020 that

has been issued. Petitioner is permitted to respond to Form No.

SVLDRS-2 that it has received and file Form No. SVLDRS-2A afresh. If

it is technically not feasible to file in the portal, respondent No. 5 will

inform petitioner about that within two weeks of this order getting

uploaded. In such case, within one week of receiving such

communication, petitioner shall file physical copy of form No.

SVLDRS-2A or objections with respondent No. 5 who shall consider

petitioner's submissions and pass such order as deemed fit in

accordance with law. Before passing any such order, respondent No. 5

shall give a personal hearing to petitioner and notice of personal

hearing shall be issued at least seven working days in advance. If

respondent No. 5 is going to rely on any orders or judgments or

pronouncements of any forum, a list thereof shall also be provided to

petitioner along with the notice for personal hearing so that petitioner

will be able to deal with / distinguish those pronouncements.

10. Petition disposed.

      [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]                           [ K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]

           Digitally signed
           by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA   MOHAN
           AMBERKAR
MOHAN      Date:
AMBERKAR   2022.07.06
           14:47:47
           +0530




                                                                                 4 of 4