Pre-cut-off quantification under Sabka Vishwas is mandatory; a partial admission during inquiry does not itself establish eligibility.

For eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in a pending inquiry or investigation, duty liability had to be finally quantified by written communication on or before 30.06.2019. A mere statement admitting part of the service tax liability during investigation did not amount to quantification, especially where the later determination was materially different. As the petitioner was ineligible for the Scheme, rejection of the declaration was upheld. The challenge based on absence of a Designated Committee hearing also failed because the hearing mechanism arises only after eligibility is established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's statement admitting part of the service tax liability during inquiry amounted to "quantification" on or before 30.06.2019 so as to make the petitioner eligible for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; (ii) Whether rejection of the declaration without constituting the Designated Committee or granting a hearing was unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's statement admitting part of the service tax liability during inquiry amounted to "quantification" on or before 30.06.2019 so as to make the petitioner eligible for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The Scheme permits a declaration in pending inquiry or investigation only where the amount of duty has been quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date. "Quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable, and the clarification in the circular includes a duty liability admitted during inquiry or investigation only when it forms part of the final quantification made on or before 30.06.2019. The admission recorded in the petitioner's statement did not establish that the duty liability had been quantified by that date, especially when the proceedings later culminated in a substantially different determination.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not eligible under the Scheme, and the rejection of the declaration on the ground that service tax had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 was . The conclusion is against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the declaration without constituting the Designated Committee or granting a hearing was unsustainable.

Analysis: The requirement of consideration by the Designated Committee and the consequential hearing mechanism arises only after a declarant is found eligible under the Scheme. Since the petitioner was held ineligible for want of pre-cut-off quantification, the Designated Committee stage was never reached.

Conclusion: No violation of the hearing requirement was established, and the challenge on this ground also fails. This issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The declaration under the Scheme was rightly refused because the duty liability had not been quantified within the prescribed time, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under the legacy dispute resolution scheme in a pending inquiry or investigation, the duty liability must be finally quantified by a written communication on or before the statutory cut-off date; a mere admission of part liability during investigation does not by itself satisfy the requirement unless it forms part of such timely quantification.

---