Pre-cut-off admission of tax liability can satisfy quantification under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and support reconsideration of a declaration.

Pre-cut-off admission of service tax liability in a written statement or departmental communication can constitute "quantification" for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in the investigation, enquiry or audit category. Exact mathematical precision at the admission stage is not required where the admitted liability has a real nexus with the later quantified amount. On that basis, the rejection of a second declaration on ineligibility grounds was not justified, and the declaration was required to be reconsidered with a hearing and a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners' service tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30.06.2019 so as to make them eligible to seek relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in the category of investigation, enquiry or audit; (ii) whether rejection of the second declaration was justified.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners' service tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30.06.2019 so as to make them eligible to seek relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in the category of investigation, enquiry or audit.

Analysis: The scheme treats "quantified" dues as a written communication of the amount payable, and the expression includes liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit. The petitioners' director had admitted the service tax liability in his statement recorded during investigation before the cut-off date, and the departmental communications also referred to the same admission. The later show cause notice quantified the dues on the same basis. Exact mathematical precision in the initial admission was not essential, so long as the admitted liability had a real nexus with the eventual quantified amount.

Conclusion: The dues stood quantified before 30.06.2019 and the petitioners were eligible to be considered under the scheme.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the second declaration was justified.

Analysis: The first declaration had been rejected on the ground that quantification was incomplete, but the second declaration disclosed the figure that corresponded to the admitted liability before the cut-off date. In the circumstances, the rejection of the second declaration on the ground of ineligibility was not warranted. The matter required reconsideration of the declaration as a valid one under the scheme, with an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order.

Conclusion: The rejection of the second declaration was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the declaration under the scheme, with consequential reliefs to follow in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under the enquiry, investigation or audit category of the scheme, a pre-cut-off admission of duty or tax liability in a written communication or statement can amount to quantification, and rejection of a declaration on a rigid insistence on later adjudicatory precision is impermissible.

---