Writ Petition Dismissal Upheld: Ineligibility for Sabka Vishwas Scheme Confirmed Due to Unmet Service Tax Quantification Deadline.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible for the Scheme as the service tax liability was not quantified by the cut-off date, 30.06.2019. Additionally, the court found no violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner did not request a personal hearing. The impugned order was deemed valid, as it was system-generated based on the petitioner's details, and no procedural errors were identified. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs, and related applications were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Requirement of quantification of service tax liability before the cut-off date.
4. Validity of the impugned order rejecting the application under the Scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.2020, which rejected its application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ("the Scheme"). The petitioner argued that having accepted its service tax liability by its letter dated 03.09.2018, it is entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner is not eligible as the service tax liability was not quantified on or before 30.06.2019, as required by the Scheme. The court noted that Section 125 of the Scheme mandates that the settlement amount has to be quantified on or before 30.06.2019. The petitioner's letter dated 03.09.2018 did not meet this requirement as it was not accepted by the respondents, and thus, the petitioner was not eligible under the Scheme.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and without giving any reason, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. However, the court observed that the petitioner did not request a personal hearing, which is a prerequisite for claiming such a violation as per the CBIC circular dated 27.08.2019. The relevant clause states that a personal hearing will be granted only if specifically requested. Since the petitioner did not make such a request, the claim of violation of natural justice was not upheld.

3. Requirement of quantification of service tax liability before the cut-off date:
The court emphasized that for availing the benefits of the Scheme, the tax liability must be quantified on or before 30.06.2019. The petitioner's letter dated 03.09.2018, which admitted tax liability, was not accepted by the respondents, and thus, did not constitute quantification as required by the Scheme. The court referred to the Division Bench judgment in VitalRao Jayaprakash Vs. The Designated Committee, which clarified that unless the tax liability is quantified before the cut-off date, the benefits of the Scheme cannot be availed. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee also held that quantification must be done by the department on or before 30.06.2019.

4. Validity of the impugned order rejecting the application under the Scheme:
The court found no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application under the Scheme. The petitioner's earlier request had already been rejected on 13.01.2020, and the petitioner did not challenge that order. The impugned order was a system-generated one based on the particulars furnished by the petitioner, and since no request for a personal hearing was made, the court upheld the validity of the impugned order. The court concluded that the petitioner's application was rightly rejected as it did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Scheme.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no costs awarded, and connected W.M.Ps. were closed.

---