RADHESHYAM TILOCHAND AGARWAL SARAOGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P.M. Dave for the petitioners. Mr. Mukesh R. Shah for the respondents. Rule. Mr. Mukesh R. Shah waives the service of Rule for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case on the request of learned counsel of both the parties the matters are taken up for final hearing right today. All these 6 Special Civil Applications are based on identical facts and involve common questions and therefore we propose to decide all these petitions by this common judgment and order as under.

(2.) The show cause notice dated 16th of July 1997 was issued to the company as well as its Directors demanding the duty and it was also proposed to impose penalties. The replies had been filed to this notice and the proceedings were pending till 1-9-1998 when the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was introduced. Under this Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force on 1st of September 1998 the declarations were to be made on or before 31st September 1998. Under the said Scheme the company settled the matter and the settlement became final with the payment of 50% of the tax as envisaged by the Scheme itself. However, the declarations made on behalf of the Directors and others, i.e., co-noticees, were not accepted and the order was passed on 30th of October 1998 against them. Thereafter an order was passed on 30th of November 1998 imposing penalties on the Directors and others. Later on, the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1998 was issued by the Central Government on 8th of December 1998. It was a statutory order and under Section 1(2) of this order it was provided that it will relate back to 1.9.1998, i.e., the date on which the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme itself had come into force. As per this statutory order it was provided that in case the dispute has been settled by the company, the proceedings will be treated to be concluded against the other Directors/co-noticees in case the notice was pending as on the date of declaration.

(3.) In view of this statutory order, the petitioners herein made a representation on 24th December 1998 that the order imposing penalties against them may not be acted upon because the company had already settled the dues and under Section 1(2) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1998 their liability had come to an end with the settlement of dues by the company as the Removal of Difficulties Order itself provided that it will be effective from 1.9.1998. This order dated 8.12.1998 is reproduced as under :