Sabka Vishwas scheme eligibility depends on prior quantification of liability; late writ relief after expiry was refused.

Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 depended on service tax liability being quantified in writing on or before 30 June 2019. Where search and investigation had taken place but the duty had not crystallised by the cut-off date, the scheme condition was not met and rejection of the declaration was valid. A writ petition filed after the scheme had expired could not be entertained to revive consideration under the scheme, so the refusal to interfere was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was eligible to invoke the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the service tax liability had not been quantified on or before 30 June 2019; (ii) Whether the writ petition could be entertained after the scheme had ceased to operate.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was eligible to invoke the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the service tax liability had not been quantified on or before 30 June 2019.

Analysis: The scheme defines "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable, and excludes persons who were subjected to enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty involved had not been quantified on or before the cut-off date. The materials showed that a search had been conducted, the appellant had only sought quantification of liability, and the liability had not crystallised by 30 June 2019. The letter relied on by the appellant was directed only to quantification in the course of investigation and did not establish satisfaction of the scheme condition.

Conclusion: The appellant was not eligible to avail the scheme, and rejection of the declaration was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained after the scheme had ceased to operate.

Analysis: The writ petition was filed after the scheme period had expired. Once the scheme had come to an end, no direction could be issued to entertain the declaration under the scheme. The procedural objection therefore sustained the refusal to interfere.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable after expiry of the scheme period.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration and the dismissal of the writ petition were upheld, leaving the appellant without relief under the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under the scheme depended on prior quantification of duty liability within the prescribed cut-off date, and a proceeding filed after the scheme expired could not be revived for consideration under the scheme.

---