Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010068682020 GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 2551/2020 1:M/S. ACME TRADE AND AGENCIES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NABIN MEDHI MARKET, T ROAD, GHY- DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM AND REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI BHUPINDER PAL SINGH, R/O- H.NO. 119, MANJIT NIWAS, GOPINATH NAGAR, BIRUBARI, GHY-16, ASSAM VERSUS 1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REP. BY SECY. TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI 2:THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI 3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST GST BHAWAN GHY 4:THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER RULE 5 OF SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) RULES 2019 HEADED BY PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST GH Advocate for Petitioner : MR. K GUPTA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA JUDGMENT Date : 23-06-2020 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI appearing for respondents in Ministry of Finance, Government of India and authorities under GST. 2. petitioner in course of their transaction was imposed penalty of Rs.86,74,199/- as per order dated 31.12.2019 of Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, Guwahati. petitioner in order to avail benefits under scheme called Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( in short Scheme 2019) had submitted their particulars in prescribed SVLDRS-1 form. Inadvertently while submitting form, aforesaid penalty imposed on petitioner was not stated and in turn in relevant column it was stated that penalty imposed upon petitioner was 0 . 3. In view of such inadvertent mistake by petitioner made in SVLDRS-1 form their claim for benefit under Scheme of 2019 stood rejected by order dated 31.12.2019. By said order it was stated that reason for rejection was that amount of penalty had not been stated in SVLDRS-1 form which makes it incorrect declaration. 4. issue as to whether inadvertent mistake as regards penalty imposed being not correctly stated in SVLDRS-1 form, has been decided by this Court in its judgment dated 04.05.2020 in WP(C)No.2149/2020. relevant portion of said judgment is extracted as below: 6.In circumstance, only issue before Court would be whether claim of petitioner for benefit under Scheme 2019 would stand rejected as because of aforesaid mistake of not mentioning penalty or different view can also be taken in matter. Admittedly Finance Act, 1994 wherein, Scheme 2019 has been incorporated does not provide for any provision for re submitting application claiming benefit under scheme. 7. In circumstance, we are required to look into matter from perspective as to whether by not mentioning penalty in Form SVLDRS-1, petitioner had Page No.# 3/4 committed incurable mistake so as to disentitle petitioner from benefits under Scheme2019 or mistake that was made can be allowed to be corrected. Apparently, mistake made can be of two different types, one being mistake based upon which legal right is claimed so that mistake made can be construed to be act of misleading authorities to claim benefit which otherwise party is not entitled or mistake made was more of inadvertent nature, which can also be terms as callous mistake, which does not put party making such mistake on undue advantageous position so as to make them entitled to benefit which they are otherwise not. mistake that was deliberately made to claim undue benefit which party was otherwise not entitled, would definitely have to be construed to be incurable mistake but at same time inadvertent mistake which may also creep in due to oversight or because of callous attitude of person making claim but ultimate result of such mistake would not accrue benefit which he otherwise would not have been entitled can be accepted to be curable mistake. 8. In instant case, mistake made by petitioner was that penalty imposed was stated to be zero whereas it is already on record that respondent authorities had imposed penalty of Rs.11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). In our view mistake made by petitioner by not stating about penalty imposed upon them in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be said to be mistake by which petitioner claimed undue benefit which they otherwise are not entitled under law. When we look into Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that person upon whom penalty is imposed would not be entitled to benefit given under scheme. Infact on contrary provision of Scheme 2019may be such that benefit of exemption, may even be applicable to amount of penalty imposed, in which event, petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to greater exemption if amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning penalty. 5. It is agreed between parties that issue involved in this writ petition is also squarely covered by said judgment dated 04.05.2020 in WP(C)No.2149/2020. 6. In view of such agreement this writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring petitioner to submit application before respondent authorities for correction to be made in information provided in Form SVLDRS-1 as regards penalty imposed and upon such application being made, respondent authorities would pass reasoned speaking order thereon. Page No.# 4/4 requirement of submitting application be made within period of 15 days from obtaining certified copy of order and upon receiving of application, respondents shall pass order on same within period of 2(two) months from date of receipt of application. 7. It is stated that pursuant to verbal communication with petitioner by respondent authorities, petitioner has submitted another Form SVLDRS-1 declaration by depicting correct fact, but same was also rejected on ground that second Form SVLDRS-1 is not maintainable. same on its own shall not preclude petitioner from requiring him to submit application for correction of information provided in first Form SVLDRS-1 as provided in this order and upon any such application being made, respondent would pass reasoned speaking order thereof. 8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Acme Trade and Agencies v. Union of India and 3 Ors., New Delhi / Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi / Principal Commissioner Central GST / Designated Committee