TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner praying for a direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the proposal of the petitioner submitted under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (herein after referred to as SVLDRS) vide application being ARN No. LD3112190022236 along with Form SVLDRS-1 dated 31.12.2019 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till such time the above application is considered and decided by the respondent no. 3. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the abovementioned application under the SVLDRS, however, no response thereto has been received from the respondent no. 3. The petitioner cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner itself shows its rejection as also the reason for the rejection. The petitioner, therefore, cannot plead ignorance of the same. 5. As far as the reliance of petitioner on the letter dated 20.11.2018 is concerned, the same is also ill-founded. The relevant extract from the letter, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is as under: "2. During the course of investigation, Shri Gaurav Kwatra, Director of M/s No 1 Worldwide Express Private Limited, in his statement dated 31.10.2018 under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Superintendent (AE) of Central Exciise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019." 11. This court had an occasion to examine the concept of 'quantification' under SVLDRS in Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Anr., 2020 [42] G.S.T.L. 24, and therefore it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion from the said judgment, as under: "13. The 'tax dues' are defined in Section 123(c) of the Finance Act, 2019, as under: "123. For the purposes of the Scheme, "tax dues" means- ........................... (c) where an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....audit and the amount involved has not been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. Thus, Section 125(1)(e) in a way compliments Section 123(c) of the Act and quantification of 'tax dues ' is imperative for a declarant to become eligible for applying under the scheme. The meaning of the word 'quantified' has been extended and broadened, obviously keeping in view the objective of the Scheme by way of Circulars dated 12th December, 2019 and 27th August, 2019. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: A) Circular dated 12th December, 2019 "2. The references received by the Board have been examined, and the issues raised therein are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 are eligible under the Scheme. Section 2(r) defines "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It is clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc." [Emphasis Supplied] 17. By virtue of the aforesaid circulars, the Respondents have clarified that the benefit of the Scheme can also be given to those cases where the duty involved is quantified by way of an admission made by the declarant in a statement made on or before 30th June, 2019. This admission can be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the scheme, and the Petitioner has not made a voluntary disclosure, but has rather approached for settlement in respect of case under investigation, we find merit in the submission of the Revenue that unilateral quantification by the Petitioner by writing the letter/communication dated 18.06.2019 cannot render him eligible. It would only be an admission of service tax liability of that amount, and such admission in itself would not rendered the petitioner eligible under SVLDRS. The quantification in the instant case was understood to be done on the issuance of the SCN. Petitioner points out that in the communication dated 18.06.2019, in fact, one of the relied upon documents was the SCN. That is quite obvious as the petitioner has taken a s....