Liberal construction of legacy dispute resolution scheme permitted adjustment of excess pre-deposit against another covered liability.

The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was construed as a beneficial amnesty and dispute-resolution measure requiring liberal interpretation. Section 124 was read as allowing deduction of amounts already paid as pre-deposit while determining the amount payable, and its reference to a show-cause notice and related appeals was treated as broad enough to cover multiple proceedings involving the same assessee and subject matter. On that basis, excess pre-deposit paid in relation to the first notice could be adjusted against liability under the second notice, especially where both disputes involved the same petitioner and commodity but different periods. The requirement of a separate declaration under Rule 3(2) was treated as procedural, not a bar to adjustment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excess disputed amount deposited by the petitioner in relation to the first show-cause notice could be adjusted towards the amount payable under the second show-cause notice under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The Scheme was held to be a beneficial amnesty and dispute-resolution measure intended to unlock legacy disputes and therefore required a liberal construction. Section 124 permits deduction of amounts already paid as pre-deposit while issuing the statement of amount payable, and its reference to a show-cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice was read as permitting relief in cases where multiple proceedings of the same assessee and same subject matter are covered by the Scheme. The absence of an express prohibition against consolidation or mutual adjustment, coupled with the fact that both disputes related to the same petitioner, the same commodity, and only different periods, led to the conclusion that clubbing for adjustment was permissible. Rule 3(2) requiring a separate declaration for each case was treated as procedural and not as a bar to adjustment of excess pre-deposit against another covered liability.

Conclusion: The adjustment sought by the petitioner was held to be permissible, and the rejection of such adjustment was held unsustainable.

---