Written admission of duty liability can amount to quantification under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, and binding circulars must be followed.

For the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, duty liability is treated as quantified when the amount payable is recorded in writing before the cut-off date; written admissions in a search panchnama and the director's statement satisfied that requirement here, so the declaration could not be rejected for want of quantification. The HC also held that the CBIC circular clarifying that admitted duty liability recorded during enquiry, investigation or audit amounts to quantification was binding on subordinate revenue authorities administering the Scheme, and the Designated Committee could not apply a narrower test. The rejection was therefore contrary to the Scheme and the circular.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's duty liability had been quantified before the cut-off date so as to make the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 maintainable; (ii) Whether the Designated Committee was bound by the CBIC circular clarifying that an admitted duty liability recorded during enquiry or investigation constitutes quantification.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's duty liability had been quantified before the cut-off date so as to make the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 maintainable.

Analysis: The Scheme treats a person under enquiry or investigation as ineligible only where the duty involved has not been quantified by the cut-off date. "Quantified" means written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. The search panchnama recorded short payment of duty in writing and the director's recorded statement admitted further duty avoidance in writing. Those written admissions, read together, satisfied the statutory requirement of quantification before 30.06.2019.

Conclusion: The duty dues stood quantified before the cut-off date and the declaration could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the Designated Committee was bound by the CBIC circular clarifying that an admitted duty liability recorded during enquiry or investigation constitutes quantification.

Analysis: The Scheme empowered the Board to issue binding orders, instructions and directions for its administration. The CBIC circular clarified that written admission of duty liability during enquiry, investigation or audit falls within quantification. Such a beneficial administrative clarification, issued for proper implementation of the Scheme, was binding on subordinate revenue authorities and could not be ignored by the Designated Committee.

Conclusion: The Designated Committee was bound to follow the circular and could not deny the declaration by insisting on a narrower meaning of quantification.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration was contrary to the Scheme and the binding circular, so the writ petition succeeded and the matter was sent back for issuance of the consequential settlement form.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the Scheme, a duty liability recorded in writing during enquiry or investigation constitutes quantification, and a clarificatory circular issued by the Board under the Scheme is binding on revenue authorities administering it.

---