Pre-cut-off admission of tax liability satisfies quantification under SVLDRS, and summary rejection without hearing violates natural justice.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification was satisfied by a written pre-cut-off communication admitting or intimating the service tax liability, so the declaration could not be rejected for want of quantification before 30 June 2019. The Bombay HC also held that a declarant facing denial of scheme benefits must be given a hearing, because summary rejection without an opportunity to explain the claim violates natural justice and the scheme's object. The rejection order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration with a hearing and a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was ineligible on the ground that the service tax dues were not quantified on or before 30 June 2019; (ii) Whether rejection of the declaration without affording an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was ineligible on the ground that the service tax dues were not quantified on or before 30 June 2019.

Analysis: The scheme treated cases under enquiry, investigation or audit as eligible where the duty demand had been quantified on or before the cut-off date. "Quantified" was understood as a written communication of the amount of duty payable, which included a letter intimating duty demand or a duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit. The petitioner had, before the cut-off date, acknowledged the outstanding service tax liability in writing. That communication satisfied the statutory requirement of quantification under the scheme.

Conclusion: The declaration could not be rejected as ineligible on the ground of absence of quantification before 30 June 2019.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the declaration without affording an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Analysis: Where the designated committee proposes to deny the benefit of the scheme, the declarant must be given an opportunity to explain its claim, especially when rejection carries adverse civil consequences. A summary rejection without hearing was contrary to the object of the scheme and to the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable for want of a hearing.

Final Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of the declaration as a valid claim under the scheme, with a hearing and a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the scheme, quantification is satisfied by a pre-cut-off written communication admitting or intimating the duty liability, and a declarant cannot be denied the scheme benefit by summary rejection without being heard.

---