Petition Dismissed for Failing SVLDRS Criteria. Department Must Quantify Before Deadline. Pursue Statutory Remedies

The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner's unilateral quantification did not meet the SVLDRS eligibility criteria. Quantification must be done by the department before June 30, 2019, and the petitioner's declaration was rightly rejected. The challenge to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was not entertained, advising the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
2. Definition and scope of "quantification" under SVLDRS.
3. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under SVLDRS.
4. Challenge to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS):
The petitioner sought relief under SVLDRS for settlement of service tax dues but was rejected on the grounds of ineligibility. The court examined the eligibility criteria under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, which excludes persons from making a declaration under the scheme if the amount of duty involved in an enquiry, investigation, or audit has not been quantified on or before June 30, 2019.

2. Definition and scope of "quantification" under SVLDRS:
The court referenced previous judgments and circulars to define "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable. It emphasized that quantification must occur before June 30, 2019, and must be communicated by the department, not unilaterally by the taxpayer. The court cited the Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Anr. case to reinforce that quantification is imperative for eligibility under SVLDRS.

3. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's declaration under SVLDRS:
The petitioner argued that the amount was quantified by their communication dated June 18, 2019. However, the court found that this unilateral declaration did not meet the requirements of SVLDRS, as quantification must be determined by the department. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration was justified because the amount was not quantified by the department before the relevant date.

4. Challenge to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN):
The petitioner also sought to quash the SCN issued on March 20, 2020. The court noted that the SCN captured the petitioner's quantified service tax liability but emphasized that the SCN itself could not be considered as quantification before June 30, 2019. Since the petitioner's eligibility under SVLDRS was not established, the challenge to the SCN was deemed not maintainable. The petitioner was advised to pursue statutory remedies under the Act to contest the SCN.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's unilateral quantification did not render them eligible under SVLDRS. The quantification must be communicated by the department, and the petitioner's declaration was rightly rejected. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the challenge to the SCN was not entertained, leaving the petitioner to seek other statutory remedies.

---