Voluntary disclosure ineligibility under legacy scheme upheld where prior audit existed before filing, and cancellation stood.

A declarant who had already been subjected to audit before filing a voluntary disclosure under the legacy dispute resolution scheme was held ineligible for that category, because the exclusion clauses were construed strictly and prior enquiry, investigation, or audit placed the person outside the scheme. The declaration form and questionnaire supported the finding that prior audit had to be disclosed, and the failure to do so made the declaration false or incomplete. On that basis, the authority was justified in cancelling the declaration and treating it as never having been made. The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed because entitlement to the scheme benefit was absent from the outset, and the connected audit proceedings and show cause notice also remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a declarant who had been subjected to audit before filing a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure category under the legacy dispute resolution scheme was ineligible for relief, and whether the later rejection of the declaration, along with the consequent audit proceedings and show cause notice, could be interfered with on grounds including breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The scheme was held to be a beneficial one aimed at liquidating legacy disputes, but the exclusion clauses in the eligibility provision were construed strictly. The category of voluntary disclosure was treated as a distinct exclusion, and a person making such a disclosure after being subjected to enquiry, investigation, or audit was held to be outside the scheme. The declaration form and its questionnaire were relied upon to show that prior audit or written communication regarding audit made the declarant ineligible to proceed under that category. On the admitted facts, audit proceedings had been initiated before the declaration was filed, yet that fact was not disclosed when the declaration was made and a discharge certificate was issued. Once the false or incomplete nature of the declaration came to light, the authority was held justified in invoking the provision permitting cancellation and treating the declaration as never having been made. The request to invalidate the rejection on the ground of denial of hearing was repelled because, on the court's construction of the scheme and the facts, the declarant was not entitled to the benefit in the first place. The challenge to the audit report and show cause notice consequently also failed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held ineligible under the voluntary disclosure category, the rejection of the declaration was upheld, and the connected challenge to the audit proceedings and show cause notice was rejected.

---