Amnesty scheme eligibility cannot be defeated by post-commencement enquiry or audit when no express disqualification exists.

A beneficial amnesty scheme must be interpreted according to its express eligibility structure and object of reducing legacy litigation. For declarations under the voluntary disclosure category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, eligibility could not be denied merely because an enquiry, investigation, or audit was initiated after the Scheme commenced on 01.09.2019. In the absence of an express provision shifting the material date to the filing of the declaration, rights and liabilities under the Scheme crystallised on commencement, and post-commencement proceedings could not create ineligibility. The rejection of the declarations was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether declarations made under the voluntary disclosure category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be rejected on the ground that an enquiry, investigation, or audit was initiated after the Scheme commenced on 01.09.2019.

Analysis: The Scheme was treated as a beneficial piece of fiscal legislation intended to reduce litigation and realise legacy dues. The relevant provisions fixed 30.06.2019 as the cut-off date for several categories, while the Scheme itself operated from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019. The definitions of enquiry, investigation, and audit under the Finance Act, 2019 were considered, and it was held that the material date for determining eligibility could not be shifted to the date of filing of the declaration in the absence of any express provision to that effect. Once the Scheme had commenced, rights and liabilities under it stood crystallised, and an enquiry or summons issued after 01.09.2019 could not create ineligibility. The interpretive approach was reinforced by the Scheme's object, the Board circulars, and the need to avoid discrimination between similarly situated declarants, consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declarations was unsustainable. A declarant under the voluntary disclosure category was not disqualified merely because enquiry, investigation, or audit proceedings were initiated after 01.09.2019. The petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a beneficial amnesty scheme contains no express provision making post-commencement initiation of enquiry or investigation a ground of ineligibility, eligibility is to be assessed with reference to the Scheme's commencement date and its express cut-off structure, not by importing an unstated date of filing-based disqualification.

---