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 declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was invalid on the ground that the duty demand had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. (ii) Whether the objection of non-joinder of DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit as a necessary party justified refusal of relief.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was invalid on the ground that the duty demand had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019.
Analysis: The scheme treats as eligible cases of enquiry, investigation or audit where the tax dues have been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. "Quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable. The petitioner had, before the cut-off date, expressly admitted the service tax liability in its letter and its director had reiterated the same in a recorded statement. The circular issued by the Board also clarified that written communication includes duty liability admitted during enquiry or investigation. On that basis, the amount stood quantified within the meaning of the scheme, and rejection on the premise that adjudication had not been completed was unsustainable. As the scheme is beneficial in nature, a liberal and purposive construction was warranted.
Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of ineligibility was not justified, and the declaration was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the objection of non-joinder of DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit as a necessary party justified refusal of relief.
Analysis: The challenge was directed against the order of the Designated Committee rejecting the declaration. The DGGI communications were internal inputs used in the decision-making process and did not make that unit a necessary party to the writ petition.
Conclusion: The objection of non-joinder was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The declaration was directed to be reconsidered afresh as valid, and the matter was sent back for decision by the Designated Committee after hearing the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the scheme, a duty demand is quantified when, on or before the prescribed cut-off date, there is a written communication or admission of liability showing the amount payable; adjudication is not a precondition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
