Quantification under Sabka Vishwas can arise from written admission during investigation, and uncommunicated rejection cannot defeat the declaration.

Written admission or communication of duty liability during an investigation can amount to "quantification" under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, so formal adjudication or a show cause notice is not required before the 30 June 2019 cut-off. On that footing, the declaration was treated as maintainable. The article further notes that once the Designated Committee had issued Form SVLDRS-2 and the rejection was not promptly and effectively communicated, the authorities could not rely on that uncommunicated rejection to defeat the declaration; the rejection and consequential notice were therefore quashed, and the declaration was to be processed after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30 June 2019 so as to make the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 maintainable; (ii) whether rejection of the declaration after issuance of Form SVLDRS-2 and without effective communication to the petitioner could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's tax dues were "quantified" on or before 30 June 2019 so as to make the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 maintainable.

Analysis: The Scheme treats a written communication of the amount of duty payable during enquiry or investigation as "quantified". The petitioner had been subjected to investigation, and before the cut-off date it had addressed communications admitting and furnishing the amount of Cenvat credit and the related interest paid in respect of the project. The legal framework under the Scheme, the defining provision for "quantified", and the departmental circulars and FAQs all support the position that a written admission or communication of duty liability during investigation satisfies the requirement; formal adjudication or issuance of a show cause notice is not necessary.

Conclusion: The petitioner's dues were quantified on or before 30 June 2019, and the declaration was within the Scheme.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the declaration after issuance of Form SVLDRS-2 and without effective communication to the petitioner could be sustained.

Analysis: The Designated Committee had already issued Form SVLDRS-2 showing zero payable amount, and the petitioner had acted on the process by filing the response form. The rejection was not communicated promptly and was supplied only much later, after the petitioner sought issuance of the discharge forms. In the peculiar facts, the authorities could not rely on an uncommunicated rejection to defeat the petitioner's entitlement, particularly when the Scheme was intended to resolve legacy disputes and the petitioner was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the adverse material.

Conclusion: The rejection could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to consideration under the Scheme, and the impugned rejection and consequential notice were quashed with directions to process the declaration and issue the appropriate SVLDRS forms after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Scheme, a written admission or communication of duty liability during enquiry or investigation before the statutory cut-off date constitutes quantification, and a declaration cannot be defeated by an uncommunicated or procedurally unfair rejection once the authorities have engaged the declaration process.

---