Assessed liability under a settlement scheme remained admitted tax, not disputed tax, despite pending proceedings and conditional deposits.

Under the One Time Settlement Scheme, assessed and quantified liability was treated as admitted tax rather than disputed tax because the Scheme defines admitted tax as tax admitted in the return but unpaid or short paid, while disputed tax covers tax other than admitted or undisputed tax. The Court held that pending earlier proceedings and deposits described as subject to final outcome did not change the statutory character of an already assessed demand; that language reflected the ordinary principle of lis pendens only. The petitioner's dues were therefore correctly classified as admitted tax, and rejection of the settlement application on the contrary basis was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme was to be treated as "disputed tax" or "admitted tax" for the purpose of settlement.

Analysis: The Scheme separately defines "admitted tax" as tax admitted in the return but not paid or short paid, and "disputed tax" as tax other than admitted, differential, or undisputed tax. The settlement structure in Schedule-1 makes the percentage payable depend on the correct classification. The Court held that the petitioner's liability had already been assessed and quantified, and the mere fact that earlier proceedings were pending or that deposits were stated to be subject to the final outcome did not convert the assessed liability into disputed tax. The Court treated that observation as reflecting the ordinary principle of lis pendens and not as altering the statutory character of the demand under the Scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner's dues were correctly treated as admitted tax, and the rejection of the settlement application on the contrary premise was upheld.

---