Bombay High Court, reinstates SVLDR-1 declaration, direct GST Dept. to allow personal hearing: Incomplete Relief to Hindustan Petroleum
The Bombay High Court has reinstated the SVLDR-1 declaration and directed the GST Department, in an incomplete relief to
By: : Susmita Ghosh
Update: 2022-01-18 11:45 GMT
Bombay High Court, reinstates SVLDR-1 declaration, direct GST Dept. to allow personal hearing: Incomplete Relief to Hindustan Petroleum The Bombay High Court has reinstated the SVLDR-1 declaration and directed the GST Department, in an incomplete relief to the Hindustan Petroleum, to allow personal hearing. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the Petitioner, has prayed for a court order...
Bombay High Court, reinstates SVLDR-1 declaration, direct GST Dept. to allow personal hearing: Incomplete Relief to Hindustan Petroleum
The Bombay High Court has reinstated the SVLDR-1 declaration and directed the GST Department, in an incomplete relief to the Hindustan Petroleum, to allow personal hearing.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the Petitioner, has prayed for a court order of mandamus for restoring the SVLDRS-1 declaration filed by the Petitioner. Considering the same on merit, the said scheme is still in presence and legalise the same by distributing essential discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4.
The Designated Committee and the Commissioner were approached by the Petitioner on various occasions. Under Fourth Schedule to Central Excise Act, the case of the Petitioner was that Superior Kerosene Oil is not an "excisable goods." In their support, the relevant portion from The Constitution (One hundred & First Amendment) Act, 2016 was also pressed in service. Sold by the Petitioner to other Oil Marketing Companies like BPCL and IOCL it was the case of the Petitioner that the dispute pertains to valuation of Superior Kerosene Oil. Under Public Distribution System and Superior Kerosene Oil though mentioned in Fourth Schedule to Central Excise Act, the same is not "excisable goods".
On the ground that the application belongs to goods of Fourth Schedule, Ms. Padmavati Patil, the counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner and the order passed by the Commissioner thereon refusing the said application.
The division bench of Justice R.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka suppressed the Order and the declaration filed by the Petitioner in Form SVLDR-1 under the SVLDR Scheme is reinstated to file.
To grant personal hearing to the Petitioner, the court has directed the Respondents. The Respondents shall pass a new Order after permitting such a prospect of being heard, without being swayed away by the observations made and the conclusions drawn in the rejection order.