Legacy dispute resolution declarations must be processed by the category and dues existing on the declaration date, not later orders.

A valid declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was required to be processed on the basis of the category and dues existing on the declaration date. The first declaration, filed under the litigation category, remained operative despite a later adjudication order, and the Designated Committee had to compute tax dues and issue the final statement accordingly. A subsequent declaration under the arrears category could not displace the earlier declaration where the statutory cut-off and conditions for arrears were not met. The later demand based on the second declaration was treated as without jurisdiction, while the adjudication order itself was not interfered with at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on 30.10.2019 remained the operative declaration, requiring computation of tax dues and estimated amount payable under the litigation category; (ii) whether the adjudication order dated 30.12.2019 and the subsequent second declaration under the arrears category could displace or nullify the first declaration.

Issue (i): Whether the declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on 30.10.2019 remained the operative declaration, requiring computation of tax dues and estimated amount payable under the litigation category.

Analysis: The Scheme did not create any automatic stay of pending adjudication merely because a declaration had been filed. However, once the first declaration was validly filed in respect of a pending appeal or remanded adjudication, the Designated Committee was required to process it in accordance with the statutory time-lines and to issue the final statement indicating the amount payable after considering objections. The legal category chosen at the time of declaration governed the computation of tax dues, and there was no statutory basis to shift the declaration from litigation to arrears because an adjudication order was later passed during the pendency of the Scheme proceedings. The time-limit for issuance of the final statement was treated as directory in the absence of any consequence of abatement.

Conclusion: The first declaration remained operative, and the estimated amount payable had to be worked out on the basis of the litigation category and the dues pending as on the declaration date.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order dated 30.12.2019 and the subsequent second declaration under the arrears category could displace or nullify the first declaration.

Analysis: The adjudication order passed during the pendency of the Scheme proceedings could not be given immediate operative effect so as to defeat the pending declaration. The second declaration, founded on that later order, was not maintainable because the relevant cut-off date and statutory conditions for the arrears category were not satisfied. The Designated Committee, having issued only the estimate and having received objections, remained bound to pass the final statement under the Scheme. The later demand raised on the second declaration was therefore without jurisdiction, while the challenge to the adjudication order itself was not entertained at that stage.

Conclusion: The second declaration was non-est, and the adjudication order could not override the pending first declaration; however, no interference was granted with the adjudication order itself at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of requiring the Designated Committee to decide the first declaration on its own merits and issue the appropriate final statement under the Scheme, while the challenge to the adjudication order was declined for the time being.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid declaration under the legacy dispute resolution scheme must be processed according to the category and dues existing on the declaration date, and a later adjudication order cannot be used to shift the declaration to a different statutory category or defeat the pending Scheme proceedings in the absence of express legislative authorization.

---