Service tax liability admission during investigation can constitute quantification for SVLDRS eligibility before the cut-off date.

An admission of service tax liability made during investigation before 30.06.2019 was treated as quantification for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Scheme and clarificatory circular covered cases under enquiry, investigation or audit where duty demand had been quantified on or before the cut-off date, and "quantified" included a written communication of duty payable, including liability admitted during investigation. Because the taxpayer's statement recorded during investigation acknowledged the liability before the cut-off date, pending completion of the investigation did not defeat eligibility. Rejection of SVLDRS benefit only on the ground that the investigation had not concluded was unsustainable; the matter was set aside for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether an admission of service tax liability made during investigation before 30.06.2019 amounted to quantification for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even though the investigation was not completed by that date.

Analysis: The Scheme and the clarificatory circular treated cases under enquiry, investigation or audit as eligible where the duty demand had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. Quantified was defined to include a written communication of duty payable, including a duty liability admitted during enquiry, investigation or audit. The petitioner's statement recorded during investigation contained an admission of service tax liability, which satisfied the requirement of quantification within the meaning of the Scheme. The pendency of the investigation by itself could not defeat eligibility when the liability had already been admitted before the cut-off date.

Conclusion: The petitioner's admission during investigation constituted quantification before 30.06.2019, and rejection of the SVLDRS benefit solely because the investigation had not concluded was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the claim was directed to be reconsidered afresh.

---