Sabka Vishwas Scheme computation upheld: disputed amount in appeal governed, and payment time was not extended.

For Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, tax dues were to be computed by reference to the disputed amount in the pending appeal, and the Court held that the CENVAT credit component could not be excluded by re-opening the merits of the confirmed demand. The declarants had treated the full adjudicated demand as the disputed tax amount, so the Designated Committee's computation was upheld. The Court also declined to interfere with the payment timeline or extend relief where the amount in Form SVLDRS-3 was not paid within the prescribed or extended period, finding no basis to compel acceptance of a lower amount through writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purposes of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the disputed amount had to be computed by excluding the amount of CENVAT credit allegedly availed but not utilised. (ii) Whether the Court should interfere with the Designated Committee's computation and extend or relax the time for payment under the Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purposes of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the disputed amount had to be computed by excluding the amount of CENVAT credit allegedly availed but not utilised.

Analysis: The Scheme required tax dues to be determined with reference to the total amount of duty disputed in the pending appeal. The order-in-original had already recorded that the CENVAT credit of the relevant amount was wrongly availed and utilised, and the appeal filed by the declarants themselves treated the entire confirmed demand as the disputed tax amount. In that backdrop, the proposed exclusion of the CENVAT credit component was an attack on the merits of the adjudication order, which could not be undertaken while working out the Scheme benefit.

Conclusion: The disputed amount was correctly taken at the full amount determined in the pending appeal, and the exclusion of the CENVAT credit component was not warranted for Scheme computation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should interfere with the Designated Committee's computation and extend or relax the time for payment under the Scheme.

Analysis: The declarants did not deposit the amount communicated under Form SVLDRS-3 within the prescribed period or even within the extended period available on account of the pandemic. The Court held that it could not rework the merits of the adjudication or direct acceptance of a lower amount under the Scheme. In the absence of timely compliance, no illegality or arbitrariness was shown in the refusal of the Scheme benefit. A representation for sympathetic consideration could still be made, but that did not alter the legal position.

Conclusion: No interference was called for, and the Court would not extend the payment period or compel grant of Scheme relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the merits because the Designated Committee's determination under the Scheme was upheld and the petitioners' belated challenge to the quantification did not justify judicial interference. A limited opportunity to make a representation was left open, but the main relief was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: For computing tax dues under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the amount disputed in the pending appeal governs the declaration, and the Court will not re-adjudicate the merits of the underlying demand or enlarge the prescribed time for payment through writ jurisdiction.

---