Voluntary disclosure under Sabka Vishwas cannot be rejected for post-cut-off investigation, and hearing is required before refusal.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the voluntary disclosure bar applies only where enquiry, investigation, audit, or summons had already commenced on or before 30 June 2019; a declaration cannot be rejected merely because summons or investigation began after that cut-off. The rejection was also procedurally flawed because the declarant was not heard before the declaration was turned down, depriving it of an opportunity to show that the statutory bar did not apply. The declaration was therefore restored for fresh consideration on merits, subject to the respondent's liberty to proceed if later material disclosed false particulars within the permitted framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a declaration under the voluntary disclosure category under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be rejected merely because investigation or summons was initiated after the cut-off date of 30 June 2019. (ii) Whether rejection of the declaration without granting a hearing was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether a declaration under the voluntary disclosure category under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be rejected merely because investigation or summons was initiated after the cut-off date of 30 June 2019.

Analysis: The Scheme was intended to resolve legacy disputes and the relevant provisions were construed in light of that object. On the earlier view already taken in a similar matter, ineligibility under the voluntary disclosure category arises when enquiry, investigation, or audit had been initiated on or before 30 June 2019. If the summons or investigation commenced after that date, the statutory bar does not apply. The rejection of the petitioner's declaration solely on the ground that summons had been issued after 30 June 2019 was therefore inconsistent with the Scheme and the settled construction of the relevant provisions.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of post-cut-off investigation was unsustainable and the petitioner remained eligible to have its declaration considered under the voluntary disclosure category.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the declaration without granting a hearing was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The declaration was rejected without affording an opportunity of being heard. Since the petitioner could have met the objection by showing that the summons were issued after the cut-off date, denial of hearing caused procedural unfairness. The decision-making process was therefore vitiated by breach of natural justice, and the matter required fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The impugned rejection was invalid for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The declarations were restored for fresh decision on merits as valid voluntary disclosure claims, while the respondents retained the statutory liberty to act if any material particulars were later found false within the permissible period.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the voluntary disclosure bar applies only where enquiry, investigation, or audit had commenced on or before the cut-off date, and rejection of such a declaration without hearing the declarant violates natural justice.

---