TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's declarations under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were barred under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 on the ground that the petitioner had been subjected to enquiry or investigation and the duty involved had not been quantified by 30 June 2019; (ii) whether the petitioner's admitted and declared service tax liability in the returns filed before the verification proceedings constituted quantified duty for the purpose of eligibility under the Scheme.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's declarations under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were barred under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 on the ground that the petitioner had been subjected to enquiry or investigation and the duty involved had not been quantified by 30 June 2019.
Analysis: The Scheme was intended to settle legacy indirect tax disputes and the exclusion in Section 125 had to be applied with reference to the case covered by the declaration. The circular issued under the Scheme clarified that where a person has multiple disputes, the existence of an enquiry or investigation in one matter does not automatically disqualify declarations relating to other eligible disputes. The record showed that the petitioner's declarations related to periods from April 2016 onwards, while verification proceedings were initiated only later.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not disqualified merely because an investigation was pending; the declarations could not be rejected on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's admitted and declared service tax liability in the returns filed before the verification proceedings constituted quantified duty for the purpose of eligibility under the Scheme.
Analysis: The Scheme's definition of quantified duty, as explained in the circular, included a written communication of duty payable and duty liability admitted during enquiry, investigation or audit. The petitioner had already filed returns and revised statements showing the tax dues before the verification proceedings commenced, and those admissions were sufficient to treat the amount as quantified for the purposes of Section 125. The Scheme also contemplated a liberal approach so that eligible legacy disputes could be resolved on their merits.
Conclusion: The petitioner's disclosed liability amounted to quantified duty and the declarations were eligible for consideration under the Scheme.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the petitioner's declarations was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the designated committee after hearing the petitioner, leaving the revenue free to reopen any discharge certificate if false particulars were later found.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
