Quantification under Sabka Vishwas Scheme includes pre-cut-off written admission of duty liability; rejection without disclosure was set aside.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification for the enquiry/investigation/audit category can be satisfied by a pre-cut-off written communication of duty liability, including an admitted liability recorded by the taxpayer or indicated in departmental correspondence. On the facts, the taxpayer's service tax dues were treated as quantified before the cut-off date, making the declaration eligible. The rejection was also unsustainable because it was based on an adverse departmental letter not supplied to the declarant and was made without a hearing. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with disclosure and a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's service tax dues were "quantified" on or before the cut-off date so as to make its declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 eligible under the investigation/enquiry/audit category; (ii) whether rejection of the declaration without furnishing the relied-upon material and without granting an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's service tax dues were "quantified" on or before the cut-off date so as to make its declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 eligible under the investigation/enquiry/audit category.

Analysis: The scheme treats a written communication of the amount of duty payable as quantification, and such communication may include a letter intimating duty demand or admission of liability during enquiry or investigation. On the facts, the petitioner had itself disclosed outstanding service tax liability in writing before the cut-off date, and the department had also issued a notice indicating a quantified liability for the relevant period before the cut-off date. The departmental stand that the dues were not finally worked out by the department was not accepted as decisive for eligibility.

Conclusion: The petitioner's dues stood quantified before the cut-off date and the declaration was eligible under the scheme.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the declaration without furnishing the relied-upon material and without granting an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection order relied upon a departmental letter adverse to the petitioner, but that document was not furnished to the petitioner. Where an adverse document is relied upon, fairness requires disclosure before decision-making. Further, a summary rejection affecting civil consequences, particularly under a beneficial settlement scheme, could not be made without giving the declarant an opportunity to explain its claim to eligibility.

Conclusion: The rejection was unsustainable for want of disclosure and opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the declaration as a valid declaration under the scheme, with a hearing and a speaking order to follow.

Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under the enquiry/investigation/audit category of the scheme, quantification is satisfied by a pre-cut-off written communication of duty liability, including an admitted liability, and an adverse rejection affecting civil consequences cannot be sustained without disclosure of relied-upon material and observance of natural justice.

---