Independent verification under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme requires reasoned scrutiny of declared pre-deposits and supporting records.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the designated committee had to independently verify a declarant's claimed pre-deposits on the basis of the declaration, supporting documents and departmental records, rather than mechanically relying only on the order-in-original. The committee was required to consider materials such as challans, accountant's certificate and affidavit, and to pass a reasoned determination. Where the claimed amounts were excluded without full verification or adequate reasons, the process was incomplete and prejudicial. The impugned disallowance was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the declarant and issuing a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the designated committee, while processing a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was required to independently verify the declarant's claimed pre-deposits and could not confine itself mechanically to the order-in-original, and whether the disallowance of the claimed pre-deposits warranted interference.

Analysis: The Scheme was introduced as a beneficial measure to settle legacy disputes and to give relief to eligible declarants. In that context, the verification power under section 126(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and rule 6(1) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 required the designated committee to verify the declaration on the basis of the particulars furnished by the declarant as well as the records available with the department. Such verification was not an appellate exercise and could not be restricted only to the findings in the order-in-original. The committee was bound to consider the documents produced by the declarant, including challans, certificate of the chartered accountant and affidavit, and then arrive at an independent and reasoned determination. Since the impugned order excluded the claimed amounts without a full and proper verification and without adequate reasons, the process adopted was incomplete and caused prejudice.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the claimed pre-deposits could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the designated committee for fresh decision after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Scheme, the designated committee must independently verify a declarant's entitlement on the basis of the declaration and departmental records, and a non-speaking or incomplete verification order is liable to be quashed and remanded.

---