Sabka Vishwas eligibility turned on pre-cut-off liability quantification, not pending investigation, with res judicata rejected.

Admission and quantification of service tax liability before the Sabka Vishwas cut-off date was treated as sufficient quantification for scheme eligibility, even though investigation was pending and the declaration was said to be belated. The court noted that the scheme and its clarification do not disqualify a declarant merely because enquiry, audit, or investigation is ongoing, and that a mismatch between the admitted liability and the amount declared did not defeat relief where the admitted liability was otherwise covered. A plea of res judicata also failed because the earlier proceeding had not finally determined the later rejection order. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and reconsideration under the scheme was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the service tax liability had been admitted and quantified before the cut-off date, notwithstanding pendency of investigation and the objection that the declaration was filed belatedly; (ii) whether the plea of res judicata barred the present petition.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the service tax liability had been admitted and quantified before the cut-off date, notwithstanding pendency of investigation and the objection that the declaration was filed belatedly.

Analysis: The admitted material showed that the petitioner's managing director had acknowledged the service tax liability and quantified it before 30.06.2019. The governing scheme and the departmental clarification treated an enquiry, investigation, or audit as not disqualifying a declarant where the duty demand had been quantified on or before the cut-off date. Quantification included written communication of duty liability admitted during investigation. The rejection on the ground that investigation was pending or that the return was filed belatedly ignored the scheme's text and the clarification. The court also held that the difference between the amount admitted and the amount mentioned in the declaration did not defeat eligibility where the admitted liability exceeded the amount eligible for relief under the scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the scheme benefit and the rejection of the declaration could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of res judicata barred the present petition.

Analysis: The earlier proceeding had been confined to an earlier rejection order and had not finally determined the issue arising from the later order in original. Since there was no final adjudication on the present controversy in the earlier round, the essential requirement for res judicata was absent.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata was rejected and did not bar the petition.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the petitioner's claim under the scheme was unsustainable, and the petitioner was held entitled to have the claim reconsidered in accordance with the scheme and the clarificatory circulars, with consequential issuance of the form necessary to proceed further.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Sabka Vishwas framework, admission and quantification of liability before the cut-off date constitutes valid quantification for eligibility, and pendency of enquiry or investigation by itself does not defeat entitlement where the scheme and clarification so provide.

---