Sabka Vishwas eligibility turns on pre-cut-off quantification; pending investigation does not defeat Scheme benefit.
Quantification of service tax liability before the 30 June 2019 cut-off was treated as sufficient to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even though investigation remained pending. The court relied on the Scheme and the departmental circular to treat admission and prior quantification during enquiry as meeting the eligibility requirement, so the rejection of Scheme benefit could not stand. The objection based on res judicata also failed because the earlier proceedings had not finally decided the present controversy on merits. The rejection orders were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law and the Scheme.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the basis that the service tax liability had been quantified prior to 30 June 2019 despite the pendency of investigation. (ii) Whether the petition was barred by res judicata or otherwise not maintainable.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the basis that the service tax liability had been quantified prior to 30 June 2019 despite the pendency of investigation.
Analysis: The petitioner's liability had been quantified by the department before the cut-off date, and the amounts had also been paid in substantial part before the declaration was filed. The Scheme, read with the departmental circular clarifying that cases under enquiry, investigation or audit are eligible where duty demand is quantified on or before 30 June 2019, supported eligibility. The court treated admission and quantification during investigation as sufficient quantification for the Scheme, and held that pendency of investigation did not defeat entitlement.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, and the impugned rejection of that benefit could not stand.
Issue (ii): Whether the petition was barred by res judicata or otherwise not maintainable.
Analysis: The earlier proceedings had not finally determined the present controversy on merits, and they were confined to an earlier order. Since no issue had been finally adjudicated in the earlier round so as to attract the bar of res judicata, that objection failed. The pendency of the later order in original did not also justify denial of writ relief.
Conclusion: The objections based on res judicata and maintainability were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders rejecting the Scheme benefit were quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law and the Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification of duty liability before the statutory cut-off date is sufficient even if enquiry or investigation remained pending, and an earlier proceeding bars a subsequent challenge only when the issue had been finally determined on merits.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
