Sabka Vishwas Scheme eligibility barred where tax was paid only after summons and investigation had begun.

A person who paid tax only after summons and after investigation had commenced was held ineligible to invoke the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, because the voluntary disclosure exclusion under Section 125(1)(f) applied. The Scheme's relief provisions and deduction of pre-deposit could not override that statutory bar, so issuance of Form 4 was ied. Since eligibility failed, the demand and order rejecting settlement were sustained, with liberty preserved to pursue an appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed time and seek merits-based consideration if filed in time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and obtain Form 4 when tax had been paid only after summons and during investigation. (ii) Whether the impugned demand and order could be sustained in the face of the statutory bar under the Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and obtain Form 4 when tax had been paid only after summons and during investigation.

Analysis: The Scheme permits relief where tax dues are linked to enquiry, investigation or audit and are quantified within the prescribed time, but Section 125(1)(f) excludes a person making a voluntary disclosure after being subjected to enquiry, investigation or audit. The petitioner's liability was paid only after summons had been issued and after investigation had commenced, bringing the case within the statutory exclusion. The provisions governing relief and deduction of pre-deposit did not overcome the eligibility bar.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief under the Scheme or to issuance of Form 4.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned demand and order could be sustained in the face of the statutory bar under the Scheme.

Analysis: Once the petitioner was found ineligible to seek settlement under the Scheme, no infirmity arose in rejecting the request for Form 4. The Court, however, granted liberty to challenge the order before the appellate authority within the stipulated time and directed consideration of such appeal on merits if filed in time.

Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---