Court sets aside order, remands for Sabka Vishwas Scheme review. Respondent to issue speaking order.

The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the second declaration as valid under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Respondent directed to provide a hearing and issue a speaking order within eight weeks. Writ petition allowed with no costs ordered.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Quantification of service tax liability before the cut-off date.
3. Rejection of declarations under the scheme.
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The petitioners sought to avail the benefits of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, by filing declarations under the category of "investigation, enquiry or audit." The core issue was whether the petitioners were eligible under the scheme, given that their service tax liability was not quantified before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019.

2. Quantification of Service Tax Liability Before the Cut-off Date:
The petitioners had admitted a service tax liability of approximately Rs. 6 crore in a statement dated 30.03.2018. However, discrepancies arose as the petitioners initially declared a lower liability of Rs. 5,16,24,145 in their first declaration dated 27.11.2019. They later corrected this figure to Rs. 6,13,91,021 in a second declaration dated 10.01.2020. The respondents rejected both declarations on the grounds that the service tax liability was not quantified before the cut-off date.

3. Rejection of Declarations Under the Scheme:
The respondents justified the rejection of the declarations by citing Section 124(1)(d) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, and the inconsistencies in the declared amounts. The court, however, referred to previous judgments, including Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and M/s G.R.Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, which clarified that "quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable, including admissions made during enquiry, investigation, or audit.

4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the rejection of declarations without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the petitioners should have been given a chance to explain the discrepancies in their declarations. The court referred to its decision in Thought Blurb, which held that summary rejection without a hearing is contrary to the scheme's objectives and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated 08.06.2020 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 to reconsider the petitioners' second declaration dated 10.01.2020 as a valid declaration under the scheme. The respondent was directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. The interim application was disposed of accordingly.

---