Bombay High Court
Deepak Shahani vs Union Of India on 30 June, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:9865-DB
Sayyed 6-WP.2017.2022.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2017 OF 2022
Godfrey Philips India Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1729 OF 2024
Deepak Shahani ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1396 OF 2024
Beenu Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2152 OF 2024
Shivakumar Raghunathan ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent No.1 in WP/2017/2022.
Ms. Nitee Punde a/w Ms. Mamta Omle for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in
WP/2017/2022.
Ms. P. S. Cardozo a/w Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar & Adv. Soutrik Kar
for Respondent in WP Nos.1729, 1396 & 2152 of 2024.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : M. S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 30 June 2025
Page 1 of 4
Sayyed 6-WP.2017.2022.docx
ORAL JUDGMENT:-(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request
of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. These Writ Petitions concern the rejection of the Petitioner's
applications for benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme). The Company has filed
Writ Petition No.2017 of 2022. The Company's employees have filed
Writ Petition Nos. 1729, 1396, and 2152 of 2024.
4. In Writ Petition No.2017 of 2022, the Petitioner is
challenging:-(i) the rejection dated 31 December 2019 (Exhibit-B) by
which declaration No.3112190016315 was rejected; and (ii) the letter
dated 16 March 2020 (Exhibit-D) by which declaration
No.312190016618 was rejected. These declarations have been rejected
by the Respondents on the ground that the Petitioner is a manufacturer
of cigarettes and is hence ineligible to avail any benefits under the
Scheme given the provisions of Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance (No.2)
Act, 2019 read with the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,
1985.
5. Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, based on
instructions, makes a categorical statement that the Petitioner is not
claiming benefits under the SVLDR Scheme in relation to tobacco
products and other goods referred to in the Fourth Schedule of the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [Fourth Schedule]. He, however, submits
that the Petitioner-Company are involved in various lines of business, of
which tobacco products are only one of them. He submitted that there is
neither any prohibition nor any good reason to deny the Petitioner the
benefits under the Scheme concerning goods, other than those falling in
Sayyed 6-WP.2017.2022.docx
the Fourth Schedule. He submits that the impugned orders, which are in
the nature of wholesale rejections of the Petitioner's applications for the
benefit of the Scheme, are vulnerable and warrant interference.
6. Mr. Sridharan submits that the rejection of the applications
deprives the Petitioner of an opportunity to avail benefits under the
Statutory Scheme. Therefore, before such wholesale rejections, the
Petitioner should have been heard, and since this was not done, the
impugned order warrants interference.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondents submit that since the
Petitioner was admittedly involved in manufacturing the cigarettes, the
Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. They rely on
Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 in support of this
contention. They submitted that since these provisions are so clear,
there was no reason to afford the Petitioner an opportunity for a
hearing.
8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied
that the impugned orders, to the extent they reject wholesale the
Petitioner's applications under the Scheme, warrant interference.
9. The Respondents may be justified in contending that the
benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended to tobacco products and
other goods falling under the Fourth Schedule. However, nothing was
shown to us based on which it could be said that the Petitioner's
applications under the Scheme in respect of goods or credit other than
those falling under the Fourth Schedule could have been straightaway
rejected without examination on merits. Mr. Sridharan pointed out that
in this case, the issue concerned input service credits. Besides, before
such wholesale rejection, the Petitioners should at least have been given
an opportunity to be heard and explain their position.
Sayyed 6-WP.2017.2022.docx
10. Now, the Petitioner, through their counsel Mr. Sridharan, have
already made a statement that they are not claiming the benefits of the
Scheme insofar as they relate to goods falling under the Fourth
Schedule. Therefore, we see no good reason why the Petitioner's
applications under the Scheme, which concern goods or input credits
for goods and services other than those falling under the Fourth
Schedule, should not be considered on their merits and in accordance
with law. Undoubtedly, all contentions of the parties regarding the
merits of the matter or any limitation issue can be kept open for
decision by the relevant authorities in the first instance.
11. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the
concerned authorities to consider the Petitioner's applications for
benefits under the Scheme afresh. This consideration will, however,
apply to goods and input credits for goods and services other than those
falling under the Fourth Schedule. As noted earlier, all contentions of
the parties on the merits, including the issue of limitation, are reserved
for the concerned authorities to decide in the first instance.
12. The Petitioner/their representatives to appear before the
Second Respondent, who is the prescribed authority, on 14 July 2025 at
11:00 a.m. The Second Respondent may either hear the Petitioner/their
representatives on the said date or fix a convenient date for hearing.
Applications under the Scheme must be submitted by 30 September
2025.
13. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any
order for costs.
14. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/07/2025 18:02:37
