Court quashes rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, cites lack of opportunity and tax liability discrepancies.

The court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme for service tax arrears settlement, citing lack of opportunity to present the case and discrepancies in quantification of tax liability. The rejection was deemed improper and violated principles of natural justice. Previous court judgments were referenced to show the petitioner's compliance. The Revenue was directed to issue a fresh order accepting the declaration within a specified timeframe, with the writ petition allowed and no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 for service tax arrears settlement.
2. Rejection of the application without providing an opportunity to support the case.
3. Discrepancy in quantification of service tax liability between the petitioner and the Revenue.
4. Comparison with previous court judgments regarding rejection of declarations.
5. Failure to provide a personal hearing notice as required by the scheme.
6. Interpretation of terms 'tax due' and 'quantified' under the scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme for service tax arrears from April 2012 to June 2017 amounting to Rs. 14,35,147. The basis of the application was a communication from the Central Excise Department quantifying the liability.

2. The rejection of the application without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present its case was deemed improper. The rejection lacked reasoning or an alternate demand, violating the principles of natural justice.

3. There was a discrepancy in the quantification of the service tax liability. The Revenue's unilateral quantification was challenged as adhoc and not supported by any equal demand on the petitioner. The Revenue's higher quantification was not justified, especially since certain periods were beyond the limitation period for enforcement.

4. Previous court judgments were cited to distinguish cases where declarations were rejected due to incomplete disclosures. The present case showed that the petitioner had been more generous in its declaration than required.

5. Failure to provide a personal hearing notice, as mandated by the scheme in case of a variation between the petitioner's declaration and the Department's estimate, was highlighted as a procedural lapse.

6. The interpretation of terms 'tax due' and 'quantified' under the scheme was crucial. The communication from the Revenue dated 29.12.2017 was considered as satisfying the requirements of the scheme for quantification.

7. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the Revenue to issue a fresh order accepting the petitioner's declaration within a specified timeframe. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---