Sabka Vishwas Scheme relief depends on pre-cutoff quantification of dues, with post-scheme challenges to rejection still maintainable.

The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 permits challenge to rejection of a declaration even after the scheme period ended, because expiry of the scheme does not by itself extinguish the remedy against an allegedly wrongful rejection. For audit, enquiry or investigation cases, eligibility depends on tax dues being quantified on or before 30.06.2019; relief is confined to the unpaid quantified amount, and any unquantified or later-determined liability remains outside the Scheme. The Court also held that officers of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence were competent to issue the show cause notice, so the jurisdictional notification challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 is maintainable even if filed after the scheme period ended; (ii) whether the petitioners in the first two writ petitions had established quantification of tax dues on or before 30.06.2019 so as to escape the exclusion in Section 125(1)(e); (iii) whether the petitioner in the second set of writ petitions could challenge the jurisdictional notification and the consequential show cause notice; and (iv) to what extent the petitioners were entitled to relief under the Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 is maintainable even if filed after the scheme period ended.

Analysis: The Scheme created a substantive mechanism for closure of legacy disputes and provided a statutory route for redress against rejection of a declaration. The expiry of the scheme period did not, by itself, extinguish the right to challenge an allegedly wrongful rejection of a declaration already filed in time. The Court distinguished a mere delay in approaching the Court from a case where the applicant was otherwise entitled to invoke the Scheme and held that the writ remedy could not be denied solely on the ground that the Scheme had ended.

Conclusion: The challenge to rejection of the declarations was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners in the first two writ petitions had established quantification of tax dues on or before 30.06.2019 so as to escape the exclusion in Section 125(1)(e).

Analysis: Under the Scheme, quantification before 30.06.2019 was the decisive condition for cases pending in audit, investigation, or enquiry. A written communication showing liability could amount to quantification only to the extent it genuinely reflected accepted and identified dues. On the facts, the first petitioner had quantified and paid tax only for the period April 2017 to June 2017, while no proper quantification was shown for the earlier period. The second petitioner had quantified admitted dues in the reply dated 07.05.2019, and the record showed that part of the liability had been admitted in returns or written communication before the cut-off date, bringing that portion within the Scheme. The Court therefore treated the relief as confined to the quantified and unpaid portion that satisfied the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The first petitioner was entitled to Scheme relief only for the quantified April 2017 to June 2017 dues, and the second petitioner was entitled to Scheme relief only for the unpaid quantified dues admitted before 30.06.2019.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner in the second set of writ petitions could challenge the jurisdictional notification and the consequential show cause notice.

Analysis: The Court held that officers of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence were Central Excise Officers for the relevant statutory purpose and were competent to issue the show cause notice. The challenge to the notification conferring jurisdiction therefore failed, and the consequential challenge to the show cause notice also could not succeed.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notification and the show cause notice was rejected.

Issue (iv): To what extent the petitioners were entitled to relief under the Scheme.

Analysis: The Court applied the Scheme provisions to segregate the admitted and quantified dues from the balance disputed or unquantified liability. It held that the Scheme benefit could be granted only to the extent the statutory preconditions were met, while the remaining dues would continue to be governed by the pending adjudicatory process. Accordingly, the first two writ petitions succeeded only in part, while the challenge to the notification and show cause notice did not succeed.

Conclusion: Partial relief was granted under the Scheme, and the remaining challenges were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld maintainability of the challenge to rejection under the Scheme, granted relief only to the limited extent of dues that were properly quantified and unpaid before the statutory cutoff, and rejected the separate challenge to the jurisdictional notification and show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification of duty or tax dues on or before 30.06.2019 is the essential condition for eligibility in audit, enquiry, or investigation cases, and relief can be confined only to the quantified unpaid portion that satisfies the statutory scheme.

---