Rejection of Tax Relief Application Upheld Due to Unquantified Liabilities and Expired Deadline under Sabka Vishwas Scheme.

The HC upheld the rejection of the appellant's application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, citing ineligibility due to unquantified tax liabilities and failure to meet scheme conditions. The dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed as it was filed post-expiration of the scheme, rendering it non-maintainable. Quantification was deemed essential for eligibility, and the appellant's arguments regarding delays and pre-scheme actions were rejected.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme
2. Dismissal of writ petition due to scheme expiration

Issue 1: Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme

The appellant, a cine actor engaged in commercial services, filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the rejection of his application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The appellant registered under taxable services but failed to pay service tax or submit returns. Following search proceedings and submission of documents, the appellant applied under the scheme for quantification of tax liability, which was rejected by the committee on grounds of ineligibility. The appellant then received a notice demanding service tax, leading to the writ petition. The single judge dismissed the petition as the scheme had expired before filing. The appellant argued that the rejection was premature, citing a Delhi High Court case emphasizing hearing before rejection. Additionally, a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision highlighted the scheme's beneficent nature. The appellant contended that his request for quantification predated the scheme's end, blaming the delay on authorities for non-action.

Issue 2: Dismissal of writ petition due to scheme expiration

The respondent argued that the scheme's automated process prevents ineligible applications, noting the appellant's claim of completed investigation was false. The rejection was based on non-finalized investigation and unquantified liabilities. The court found the appellant ineligible under specific clauses of the scheme due to admitting investigation and producing documents post-search. The appellant's failure to quantify tax liability rendered him ineligible for scheme benefits. The court emphasized that quantification was a prerequisite for scheme eligibility. The appellant's letter requesting quantification did not imply scheme application. The court upheld the single judge's decision, stating the appellant's petition was filed after the scheme's expiration, making it non-maintainable.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the rejection of the appellant's application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, citing ineligibility due to unquantified tax liabilities and the appellant's failure to meet scheme conditions. The dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed as it was filed after the scheme's expiration, rendering it non-maintainable. The court highlighted the importance of quantification for scheme eligibility and rejected the appellant's arguments based on delays and pre-scheme actions.

---