Quantified tax dues under legacy dispute scheme can arise from written liability communication, and rejection needs a meaningful hearing.

For eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, "quantified" means a written communication fixing the duty liability on or before the cut-off date; a demand letter or admission during enquiry, investigation, or audit is sufficient, and a show cause notice or adjudication is not required. The relevant communication here was treated as having quantified the service tax dues before 30 June 2019, so ineligibility on that ground was not justified. The rejection of the declaration was also held unsustainable because no effective opportunity of hearing was given before adverse rejection, contrary to natural justice. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the declarant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declarant's tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30 June 2019 so as to satisfy the eligibility requirement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; (ii) Whether rejection of the declaration without affording an effective opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the declarant's tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30 June 2019 so as to satisfy the eligibility requirement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The Scheme treats "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. A demand letter or admission of liability during enquiry, investigation, or audit is sufficient; adjudication or issue of a show cause notice is not necessary. The relevant communication in this case fixed the service tax liability before the cut-off date. The date of receipt of a copy of that communication was immaterial because the relevant factor was the date of quantification, not the date of physical communication.

Conclusion: The tax dues stood quantified on or before 30 June 2019, and the declaration could not be rejected on the ground of ineligibility for want of timely quantification.

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

Analysis: Where a declaration is proposed to be rejected, fairness requires that the declarant be heard, particularly because rejection entails adverse civil consequences and deprives the declarant of the benefit of the Scheme. A hearing already contemplated for disagreement with an estimate does not eliminate the need for an opportunity to explain before outright rejection of the declaration. The impugned rejection was therefore inconsistent with principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration without an effective hearing was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the declaration under the Scheme after granting a hearing to the declarant.

Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under the Scheme's enquiry, investigation, or audit category, "quantified" means a written communication of duty liability on or before the cut-off date, and a declaration cannot be summarily rejected without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing where adverse civil consequences follow.

---