Sabka Vishwas eligibility turns on pre-cut-off quantification of liability, even where investigation is pending and res judicata is absent.
Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, prior admission and quantification of service tax liability before 30.06.2019 can support eligibility even if enquiry or investigation was still pending, because written communication of admitted duty liability is treated as quantification. A mismatch between the quantified liability and the amount stated in Form SVLDRS-1 does not necessarily defeat the claim where the liability was already admitted and paid and the relevant waiver threshold was satisfied. A prior disposal of an earlier petition as infructuous, without final adjudication on the present dispute, does not create res judicata or bar maintainability.
Issues: (i) whether admission and quantification of the service tax liability before 30.06.2019 entitled the petitioner to benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 notwithstanding pending enquiry or investigation; (ii) whether a variance between the admitted/quantified liability and the amount stated in Form SVLDRS-1 disentitled the petitioner from the Scheme; (iii) whether the present petition was barred by res judicata or was otherwise not maintainable because an earlier petition had been disposed of.
Issue (i): whether admission and quantification of the service tax liability before 30.06.2019 entitled the petitioner to benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 notwithstanding pending enquiry or investigation.
Analysis: The petitioner had admitted and quantified the service tax liability before the cut-off date. The Scheme, read with the relevant clarification on quantification, treats written communication of duty liability admitted during enquiry, investigation or audit as quantification. Pending investigation by itself does not defeat eligibility where quantification had already occurred before 30.06.2019.
Conclusion: Yes. The petitioner was entitled to claim the Scheme benefit on this ground.
Issue (ii): whether a variance between the admitted/quantified liability and the amount stated in Form SVLDRS-1 disentitled the petitioner from the Scheme.
Analysis: The admitted and quantified liability was found to be substantial and had already been paid. The amount eligible for waiver under the Scheme was lower than the amount already admitted and paid. The mismatch relied on by the respondents did not alter the petitioner's entitlement, because the quantified liability satisfied the Scheme threshold and the payment exceeded the amount relevant for the claimed waiver.
Conclusion: No. The variance did not disentitle the petitioner from the Scheme.
Issue (iii): whether the present petition was barred by res judicata or was otherwise not maintainable because an earlier petition had been disposed of.
Analysis: The earlier proceeding had not finally decided the present dispute on merits and had been disposed of as infructuous in relation to a different order. Since there was no prior final adjudication of the present issue, the bar of res judicata did not apply. The existence of an un-stayed order in original also did not prevent the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.
Conclusion: No. The petition was not barred by res judicata and was maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law, resulting in partial relief to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: For the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification of duty liability before the statutory cut-off date is sufficient to establish eligibility even if enquiry or investigation remains pending, and a prior non-final disposal does not create res judicata against a later challenge to a different final order.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
