TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' service tax liability was quantified on or before the cut-off date so as to entitle them to the benefit of the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; (ii) Whether rejection of the declaration without affording a hearing was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' service tax liability was quantified on or before the cut-off date so as to entitle them to the benefit of the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
Analysis: The record showed that the petitioners had given statements during inquiry and investigation admitting their service tax liability and indicating amounts due and paid well before 30.06.2019. The subsequent show cause notice also referred to those statements and the admitted liability. In such circumstances, the liability was not a post-cut-off quantification, and the material available with the department supported consideration of the declaration under the scheme.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to have their declaration considered on the footing that quantification had taken place before the cut-off date.
Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the declaration without affording a hearing was sustainable.
Analysis: The declaration was rejected without hearing the petitioners, although they had placed material showing prior quantification and payment. Since the petitioners could have explained the departmental record and the statements recorded before the cut-off date, denial of hearing was inconsistent with fair procedure.
Conclusion: The rejection without hearing was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision on the petitioners' SVLDRS declaration after granting them an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of the Sabka Viswas scheme, liability admitted during inquiry or investigation and reflected in departmental record before the cut-off date can amount to quantification, and the declaration cannot be rejected without following fair hearing requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
