Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Case Details: Santogen Textiles Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 44 (Guj.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
• S/Shri Prakash Shah & Dhaval Shah, Adv., for the Petitioner.
• Shri Param V Shah, Adv., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-assessee had filed a declaration in Form SVLDR-1 seeking to avail the benefit of the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, by invoking section 121(c)(ii) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The said declaration was rejected by the Designated Committee by applying section 123(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The petitioner-assessee challenged the rejection, and the High Court, in earlier proceedings, quashed the order of the Designated Committee, holding that the adjudication proceedings would not survive, and further directed the Designated Committee to accept the petitioner-assessee’s Form SVLDR-1 and to issue Form SVLDR-3. Notwithstanding the said directions, an adjudication order was passed thereafter, and in the present writ proceedings, the petitioner-assessee contended that, in view of the binding directions of the High Court under the Scheme, the subsequent adjudication order and proceedings could not be sustained. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that once a specific direction had been issued to the Designated Committee to accept the declaration under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and to issue Form SVLDR-3, the adjudication proceedings stood eclipsed. Interpreting section 129(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, read with section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Court held that continuation of adjudication after such judicial directions was legally impermissible. The Court further held that the adjudication order passed subsequent to the earlier order of the High Court could not survive, irrespective of the plea that a copy of the said order was not available at the relevant time. Accordingly, the adjudication order and proceedings were quashed and the petition was disposed of in favour of the petitioner-assessee.