Sabka Vishwas relief for co-noticees cannot be denied merely for non-filing of declaration when main noticee has settled.

Relief under the Sabka Vishwas scheme was treated as available where the dispute concerned only penalty and the duty was already paid or nil, so the statutory benefit under Section 124(1)(b) did not depend on the Designated Committee's discretion in that situation. Filing a declaration was regarded as a procedural step, and denying relief solely because the co-noticees had not filed one would undermine the scheme's substantive purpose. Applying this position, the Tribunal held that once the main noticee had obtained discharge under the scheme, the co-noticees in the same proceedings could not be denied consequential relief from penalty. The penalty on the appellants was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on co-noticees survives when the main noticee has settled the dispute under the Sabka Vishwas scheme, and whether non-filing of declaration by the co-noticees bars relief.

Analysis: Relief under Section 124(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies where the dispute relates only to penalty and the duty has been paid or is nil. The statutory benefit is not dependent on the discretion of the Designated Committee in such a situation. Filing of a declaration is only a procedural step, and denial of relief solely for want of such declaration would defeat the substantive benefit intended by the scheme. The settled position applied by the Tribunal is that once the main noticee has obtained discharge under the scheme, co-noticees in the same proceedings should not be denied consequential relief from penalty merely because they did not file a declaration.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellants could not be sustained, and relief under the scheme was available to them despite non-filing of declaration.

---