Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010060702023 2026:GAU-AS:3656 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1645/2023 GAUTAM BANERJEE PROPRIETOR OF M/S KOOLTECH SYSTEMS (ASSAM), NEAR APSARA CINEMA HALL, G.S ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-781006 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ASSAM 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE GUWAHATI DIVISION-I, GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD, MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/12 B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate. Shri A. Kaushik, Advocate. Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. C. Keyal, Sr. SC, CGST. Date of hearing and judgment : 12.03.2026 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The challenge instituted in this petition has filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to an order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Guwahati-I Division and the subsequent order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST whereby the appeal has been rejected. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a Proprietor of M/s Kooltech Systems (Assam) and has been provided the status of a service provider and the relevant period in this case is the financial year 2014-2015. On 07.11.2019, a demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 66 B, 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 with the allegation that services worth Rs.23,47,386/- was assessed for the concerned period and accordingly a demand of Rs.2,90,137/- including cess was made. The petitioner had submitted a reply on 27.12.2019 whereby it had accepted the demand and agreed to pay the same. However, the petitioner had also requested to be given the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). Accordingly, the petitioner had filed SVLDRS-1, receipt of which was Page No.# 3/12 acknowledged on 31.12.2019. Consequently, the Designated Committee, after consideration of the matter had issued SVLDRS-3 and determined the amount payable as Rs.1,16,054.80 which was paid on 20.01.2020. After such payment, SVLDRS-4 which is the Discharge Certificate was issued on 04.02.2020. According to the petitioner, after issuance of such Discharge Certificate which is not in dispute, the matter had come to a conclusion. However, the Assistant- Commissioner had passed an order in original on 16.02.2022 ex-parte and confirmed tax of Rs. 2,90,137/- along with penalty under Sections 77 and 78. It was recorded in the said order that the petitioner had failed to respond to the show cause notice. 3. Having come to know about the aforesaid development, the petitioner had submitted a compliance report on 05.04.2022 and had reiterated the undertaking not to prefer any appeal so far as the settlement of the matter vide issuance of SVLDRS-4. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) putting into challenge the order in original dated 16.02.2022 which was however dismissed on 06.12.2022. The primary ground of dismissal of the said appeal was that the SVLDRS was not applicable as the show cause notice in the instant case was issued on 07.11.2019 which was after the prescribed date of 30.06.2019. The appellate authority had relied upon the explanation to Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 2019. It is the aforesaid actions which are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Kaushik, learned counsel. I have also heard Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST. Page No.# 4/12 5. Dr. Saraf, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though a show cause notice was initiated on 07.11.2019, the petitioner, vide a written application dated 27.12.2019 had requested benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019. The said request was duly considered and after completion of all the formalities, the amount was determined which was paid leading to issuance of the Discharge Certificate (SVLDRS-4) on 04.02.2020. He submits that after issuance of such Discharge Certificate, the matter could not have been re- opened as the same is not authorised in law. He has submitted that though as a matter of fact, no specific reply was filed qua the show cause notice, a communication was issued on 27.12.2019 whereby the aspect that the petitioner wished to avail the benefit of the Scheme was clearly mentioned. Nonetheless, the matter was proceeded ex parte and the matter in original was passed. He has submitted that in the said order, there is no reference to the aspect of issuance of the Discharge Certificate dated 04.02.2020. 6. With regard to the Appellate Order dated 06.12.2020, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding that SVLDRS is not applicable to the proceeding is not legally tenable inasmuch as there is a clear mandate of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) dated 12.12.2019 that even for cases where show cause notices were issued on or after 01.07.2019, it would be desirable that the tax payer in such cases also be given an opportunity to avail the benefit. He has submitted that it is not the case of the Department that such application was rejected at the threshold. On the contrary, the application made on 31.12.2019 was duly processed, amount determined, paid and Discharge Certificate was issued. He accordingly submits that the aforesaid ground of the appellate authority is unsustainable in law. Page No.# 5/12 7. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon certain decisions including the following: i. Thought Blurb Vs Union of India (Bombay HC) reported in 2020 SCC Online Bom 1909. ii. Astute Valuers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay HC; Division Bench) reported in (2025) BHC-OS: 25376-DB). 8. In the case of Thought Blurb (supra) the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which have been pressed into service: “40. There is a provision for rectification of errors in section 128 and under section 129 every discharge certificate issued under section 126 shall be conclusive as to the matter and the time period stated therein. Once such a discharge certificate is issued, the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty for the matter and time period covered by the discharge certificate besides being protected from prosecution; further no matter and time period covered by such declaration shall be re-opened. 51. We have already discussed that under sub sections (2) and (3) of section 127 in a case where the amount estimated by the Designated Committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then an intimation has to be given to the declarant in the specified form about the estimate determined by the Designated Committee which is required to be paid by the declarant. However, before insisting on payment of the excess amount or the higher amount the Designated Committee is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the declarant. In a situation when the amount estimated by the Designated Page No.# 6/12 Committee is in excess of the amount declared by the declarant an opportunity of hearing is required to be given by the Designated Committee to the declarant, then it would be in complete defiance of logic and contrary to the very object of the scheme to outrightly reject an application (declaration) on the ground of being ineligible without giving a chance to the declarant to explain as to why his application (declaration) should be accepted and relief under the scheme should be extended to him. Summary rejection of an application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the declarant would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Rejection of application (declaration) will lead to adverse civil consequences for the declarant as he would have to face the consequences of enquiry or investigation or audit. As has been held by us in Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (supra) it is axiomatic that when a person is visited by adverse civil consequences, principles of natural justice like notice and hearing would have to be complied with. Non-compliance to the principles of natural justice would impeach the decision making process rendering the decision invalid in law. 52. We have one more reason to take such a view. As has rightly been declared by the Hon'ble Finance Minister and what is clearly deducible from the statement of object and reasons, the scheme is a onetime measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax as well as to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by a person eligible to make a declaration. The basic thrust of the scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigations centering around service tax and excise duty. Therefore the focus is to unload this baggage of pre-GST regime and allow business to move ahead. We are thus in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Vaishali Sharma v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 4763 of 2020, decided on 5-8- 2020 that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is Page No.# 7/12 to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning.” 9. It is submitted that it has been clearly laid down that once a Discharge Certificate is issued, the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest or penalty for the period. 10. In the case of Astute Valuers (supra), a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has made the following observation: 48. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said show-cause notices, which is on record, which appears to have been overlooked by the Respondents. In fact, as a last straw on the camel's back, the Respondents have raised demands of interest on alleged delayed payments contrary to the provisions of Sections 124, 126 and 129 of the Finance Act, 2019. This is not a case where the Respondents allege any falsity, misstatement, mis-declaration, suppression or the like in the voluntary disclosure made in the declaration filed by the Petitioner, under the SVLDRS. In such situation, when a discharge certificate for the settlement of all tax dues has been issued, the demands raised by the show cause notices issued would be ex facie contrary to law. 11. Reliance has also been placed on the observations made in paragraph 62 of the aforesaid judgement [Astute Valuers (supra)] which deals with the objective of the Scheme of the SVLDRS which is to strike a balance to reach an amicable resolution of tax disputes. For ready reference, the observations made in paragraph 62 are extracted herein below: 62. Before parting, we may observe that such Schemes as the SVLDRS are floated by the Government to strike a balance between amicable resolution of Page No.# 8/12 tax disputes and protecting revenue interest. This is vital in contemporary times. Such Schemes encourage bonafide Assessees to disclose unpaid taxes and bring a closure to the past disputes which ultimately result in a win-win situation for the stakeholders as also for the nation's economy. We are confident that the Government/executive would enforce such Schemes in accordance with law and under the applicable statutory framework. The authorities concerned would bear in mind its avowed object and purpose and ensure its smooth implementation, without unnecessary hurdles/bottlenecks and unwarranted technicalities. This would be a step forward in facilitating the vision of ease of doing business in India. We conclude with this optimistic solemn hope.” 12. Shri Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, Central GST has however strenuously opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the crucial date is mentioned in the scheme which is 30.06.2019 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued after the said date and therefore, the Scheme per se would not be applicable. He has however fairly submitted that there is no dispute to the aspect that the SVLDRS-1 was received, processed and the amount was determined to be Rs.16,04,580/- which was paid by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 followed by issuance of a Discharge Certificate being SVLDRS-4. He has also fairly submitted that this aspect has not been dealt with in the order in original or even the affidavit filed in this case. As regards the appellate order dated 06.12.2022, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the expression used in the Notification dated 12.12.2019 is that it would be “desirable” to give tax payers the benefit for whom show cause notices were issued on or after 01.07.2019 and therefore, the same would not vest any enforceable right. Page No.# 9/12 13. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2022 passed in SLP 2070 of 2022 (M/s Yashi Constructions Vs Union of India & Ors.) and has submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had refused to grant relief to the tax payer. 14. Rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 15. Certain aspects which are not disputed are as follows. It is not in dispute that there was a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.11.2019 and the petitioner in his reply had also made a request to be given the benefit of the SVLDRS Act, 2019. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Scheme had mentioned the date as 30.06.2019 and the show cause notice is of subsequent date. However, what is pertinent to note that the application to be given benefit under the SVLDRS-1 was not rejected and on the other hand, the same was accepted and the Designated Committee had issued SVLDRS-3 by determining the amount payable as Rs. 1,16,054.80. It is also not in dispute that upon payment of the aforesaid amount on 20.01.2022, the Discharge Certificate in the form of SVLDRS-4 was issued on 04.02.2020. At this stage, this Court would like to deal with the Notification dated 12.12.2019 issued by the CBITC. In the said notification, under paragraph (viii) the following has been stated: “viii) There may be cases where the show cause notice were issued on or after 01.07.2019 and such cases are also not covered under any of the categories such as an enquiry or investigation or audit and tax dues having not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. However, such cases become eligible under 'arrears' category depending the fulfilment of other conditions such appeal Page No.# 10/12 period being over or appeal having attained finality or the person giving an undertaking that he will not file any further appeal in the matter (Member's D.O. letter F.No. 267/78/19/CX.8 dated 30th October, 2019), Since the main objective behind the Scheme is to liquidate the legacy cases under Central Excise and Service Tax, it would be desirable that the taxpayer in the above mentioned cases are also given an opportunity to avail its benefits. Therefore, the field formations were asked to take stock of such cases, and complete the on-going adjudication proceeding expeditiously following the due process. Further, it would also be desirable that the process of review is also carried out expeditiously in such cases so that the designated committees are able to determine the tax dues within the time stipulated under the Scheme.” The objective of the aforesaid guidelines is to give tax payers, who are issued show cause notice after the crucial date an opportunity to avail its benefit. 16. Shri Keyal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has laid emphasis on the aspect of the use of the term “desirable” and has contended that the same would not give an enforceable right. Though such a submission may not be wholly incorrect, what is of significance in this case is that the application to get the benefit which was filed on 27.12.2019 was duly acknowledged and the matter was brought to a logical conclusion by issuance of a Discharge Certificate (SVLDRS-4) on 04.02.2020. The question therefore would arise as to whether the matter could have been reopened by passing the order in original on 16.02.2022. This Court has also noticed the said order in original has not even taken cognizance of the earlier development including the important developed of issuance of Discharge Certificate (SVLDRS-4) on 04.02.2020. In the opinion of this Court, the said aspect is a relevant factor which ought to Page No.# 11/12 have been taken into consideration and answered. That not being done, the order in original is not sustainable in law. 17. So far as the order passed in appeal is concerned, though it may not be strictly required to adjudicate the same as the order in original has been interfered with, this Court is of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority in the order dated 06.12.2022 qua the aspect of applicability of the Scheme after 30.06.2019 appears to be in teeth of the observations made by the CBITC in the Notification dated 12.12.2019 which have been extracted above. This Court is of the opinion that though the expression used is “desirable”, the ultimate object is to bring a resolution of all such disputes by giving benefits to assesses, who have been issued show cause notice on or after 01.07.2019. 18. So far as reliance of the Department upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Yashi Constructions (supra) is concerned, a bare perusal of the order would show that the facts are entirely distinguishable. In the said case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the aspect was with regard to extension of time beyond the period prescribed by the scheme which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to do as the same would amount to modifying the scheme which is within the domain of the Government. In the instant case, the records clearly indicate that the application for availing the benefits under the Scheme was duly considered and a Discharge Certificate was issued on 04.02.2020 after payment of the amount determined. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the Page No.# 12/12 opinion that a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned order in original dated 16.02.2022 which has been affirmed by the appellate order dated 06.12.2022 stands set aside and interfered with. 20. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 21. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant