Petition challenging Sabka Vishwas Scheme rejection orders dismissed, lack of duty quantification cited.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection orders of the Second Declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner's request for directions to provide a hearing opportunity and copies of correspondence related to investigations was denied. The court emphasized the lack of quantification of duty by a specified date in the respondent's communication, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment instructed the order to be published on the website and sent to the counsel via email.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection orders of Second Declaration filed under Sabka Vishwas Scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection orders of the Second Declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner sought directions to the respondent to provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also requested copies of complete correspondence and note-sheets related to investigations and declarations filed under the scheme.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent had initiated an inquiry into the petitioner's service tax liability for work contract services provided under a specific contract. The petitioner claimed to have submitted relevant documents and details of pre-deposited tax liability in response to summons and letters from the respondent. The petitioner contended that it had deposited a significant amount towards the admitted service tax liability based on the respondent's instructions.

The petitioner attempted to settle the tax dispute by filing a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, which was rejected by the respondent citing non-quantification of dues up to a specified date. Subsequent attempts by the petitioner to file fresh declarations and seek reconsideration were also met with rejection. The petitioner's requests for reconsideration and information under the Right to Information Act went unanswered for months.

A review of the documents revealed that the petitioner had unilaterally stated its service tax liability in a letter and made a partial payment towards it. The respondent, in a subsequent letter, highlighted the outstanding service tax liability and requested the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. The investigation under the CGST Act required the petitioner to provide various documents, but it was observed that the quantum of duty had not been quantified or communicated by the respondent to the petitioner by a specific date.

The court found the petition lacking in merit and dismissed it. The judgment emphasized that the communication from the respondent did not indicate the quantification of duty by a certain date. The court directed the order to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsel via email.

---