Sabka Vishwas Scheme relief depends on accurate disclosure; false particulars can leave a discharge certificate ineffective.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, a declarant who had already filed ST-3 returns admitting duty payable but unpaid could not switch to the voluntary-disclosure route to obtain a more favourable computation on inconsistent particulars. The Scheme distinguishes arrears from voluntary disclosure, and relief for arrears is tied to the duty admitted in the return. A discharge certificate is generally conclusive, but if the declaration is founded on false or incorrect particulars, the statutory exception permits the Department to disregard the declaration and proceed under the applicable enactment; the impugned demand and order were therefore left undisturbed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declarant was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the basis of the return already filed, and whether the subsequent demand and order could be sustained despite issuance of a discharge certificate.

Analysis: The declarant had filed ST-3 returns admitting tax liability for the relevant period, but in the declaration under the Scheme it proceeded on a reduced figure and sought relief on the footing of arrears. The Scheme distinguishes between "amount in arrears" and "voluntary disclosure", and the relief under the Scheme for arrears is linked to the duty admitted in the return but not paid. A declarant who has already filed a return showing duty payable but unpaid cannot invoke the voluntary-disclosure route to claim a more beneficial computation. The discharge certificate is generally conclusive, but where the declaration itself is founded on false or incorrect particulars in a voluntary-disclosure situation, the statutory exception permits the Department to treat the declaration as never having been made and proceed under the applicable enactment.

Conclusion: The declaration was not validly maintainable in the manner claimed by the petitioner, and the Department was justified in proceeding on the basis that the earlier discharge certificate did not foreclose action under the statutory exception.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned demand and order were left undisturbed, with only a liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Scheme, a declarant who has already filed a return admitting duty payable but unpaid cannot obtain the benefit of voluntary disclosure to secure an inconsistent concession, and a discharge certificate issued on false or incorrect particulars does not bar proceedings where the statute expressly provides an exception.

---