Himachal Pradesh HC Rejects Tourism Corp’s SVLDRS ‘Litigation’ Bid After It Left Arrears Order Unchallenged And Paid ₹8.55 Lakh Without Protest

The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 20 April 2018, which was adjudicated on 19 June 2019, resulting in a demand of ₹36,82,360 with penalty.

It filed an appeal on 6 September 2019 and applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (“Scheme”), claiming the “litigation” category.

The authority treated the case as one under “amount in arrears” and, following a hearing on 13 January 2020, required payment of ₹8,55,511 under the Scheme.

The Corporation paid that amount without recorded protest and later sought a writ directing consideration under the “litigation” category and refund of the amount paid.

The Court considered the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, published in the Finance Act, 2019, including the petitioner’s reliance on Section 121(c) and the distinction between “litigation” and “amount in arrears”.

It also referred to Circular No. 1073 dated 12 December 2019, paragraph 2(v), concerning eligibility as on the relevant date, and FAQ Question No. 6, which the authority relied on in classifying cases where an appeal was filed after the cut-off date.

The Court’s disposition rested on the failure to challenge the order said to have caused the grievance, the Corporation’s payment without recorded protest, and the absence of an adequate explanation for the delay in approaching the Court.

The Court found that the authority’s order of 13 January 2020 expressly rejected the Corporation’s claim to the “litigation” category and treated the application as falling under “amount in arrears”.

That order was not challenged, although the Court identified it as the point at which any cause of action arose.

The Corporation then paid the amount required under the Scheme without showing that payment was made under protest; the Court was not persuaded that it had no option but to pay, since the payment arose from its own application for Scheme relief rather than a demand or punitive proceeding.

The petition also did not explain why the Corporation failed to approach the Court promptly after payment, and the asserted Covid-related explanation was unsupported by any pleading.

In these circumstances, the Court found no merit in the petition.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.