Court finds petitioner eligible under SVLDR Scheme, sets aside rejection, directs issuance of Form-3.

The court held that the petitioner was eligible to file a declaration under the SVLDR Scheme as the tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date. The rejection of the petitioner's declaration by the respondent was deemed erroneous, and the court set it aside. The respondent was directed to issue Form-3 indicating the amount payable by the petitioner within 15 days. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner to file a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme).
2. Interpretation of the term "quantified" under the SVLDR Scheme.
3. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's declaration by the respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the Petitioner to File a Declaration under the SVLDR Scheme:
The petitioner, a company engaged in providing "Outdoor Catering Services and Cleaning Services," was registered under the Service Tax Rules and later under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). The petitioner received multiple summons from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) regarding an inquiry about evasion of service tax. The petitioner's Director admitted a liability of Rs.1,44,60,835/- in a statement recorded on 25th June 2019. Subsequently, a show cause-cum-demand notice was issued on 16th October 2019. The SVLDR Scheme, introduced under the Finance Act, 2019, required declarations to be filed by 31st December 2019, later extended to 15th January 2020. The petitioner filed a declaration under the category of investigation by DGGI, declaring a total tax liability of Rs.1,44,60,835/- and an amount payable of Rs.28,85,417.50. The designated committee initially estimated the same amount payable but later rejected the declaration on the grounds that the tax quantification was not finalized before 30th June 2019.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Quantified" under the SVLDR Scheme:
The court referred to Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019, which outlines eligibility for making a declaration under the scheme. Section 123(c) specifies that "tax dues" mean the amount of duty payable under any indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. The term "quantified" is defined in Section 121(r) as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. The court also considered the Circular dated 12th December 2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC), which clarified that eligibility should be determined as it was on the relevant date, i.e., 30th June 2019. The CBITC's FAQ No. 53 further clarified that only cases where the tax demand was finally worked out on or before 30th June 2019 are eligible under the scheme.

3. Validity of the Rejection of the Petitioner's Declaration by the Respondent:
The court found that the petitioner's Director had admitted the tax liability amounting to Rs.1,44,60,835/- in a statement recorded on 25th June 2019, which constituted a written communication and hence, a quantification of the tax dues before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019. The issuance of the show cause notice after 30th June 2019 did not affect the petitioner's eligibility. The court referred to a similar case, Sabreesh Pallikere vs. Jurisdictional Designated Committee, where it was held that the requirement under the scheme is the admission of tax liability by the declarant during inquiry, investigation, or audit, and minor discrepancies in the figures do not affect eligibility. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the petitioner was eligible to file a declaration under the SVLDR Scheme and that the rejection by the respondent was erroneous.

Conclusion:
The court held that the petitioner was an eligible person entitled to file a declaration under the SVLDR Scheme as the tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date. The respondent's rejection of the petitioner's declaration was set aside. The court directed the respondent to issue Form-3 indicating the amount payable by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---