1. Heard Mr. Raichandani, Learned Counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Jetly, Learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Ochani, Learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 27-2-2020 passed by the designated committee i.e. respondent No. 5 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner dated 13-12-2019 filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the scheme' hereafter) and further seeks a direction to the said respondent to reconsider the declaration of the petitioner and thereafter grant the relief(s) in terms of the scheme.

3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing event management services to its customers. Being a service provider, it was registered as such under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Service tax department initiated investigation against the petitioner for the period 1-4-2013 to 30-6-2017 alleging short payment of service tax. It is stated that during the course of investigation, Shri Nipun Radhu, authorised representative of the petitioner, made a statement on 26-11-2018 under Section 83 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai. In response to question No. 5 pertaining to service tax liability for the period under consideration, he stated that service tax liability for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 had been discharged, however, interest for late payment for the financial year 2015-16 was yet to be paid. That apart, he quantified the service tax liability for the financial year 2016-17 at Rs. 1,61,01,194.00 and for the period 2017 to June, 2018 at Rs. 14,60,823.00. He explained that due to non-availability of funds, petitioner could not discharge the liability in time but assured that those would be paid before 28-2-2019.

5. Similar statement of Shri Nipun Radhu was recorded on 13-3-2019, where also he admitted service tax liability of Rs. 1,61,01,194.00 for the financial year 2016-17 and an amount of Rs. 14,60,823.00 for the year 2017-18 (upto June, 2017).

6. When the scheme was introduced through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, petitioner submitted declaration on 30-12-2019 under the category of "investigation, enquiry or audit" with sub-categorisation "under investigation by DGGI" declaring service tax dues for the period under consideration at Rs. 91,63,254.00. However, by an order dated 27-2-2020 respondent No. 5 rejected the said declaration on the ground of ineligibility with the remark that DGGI had informed that the quantification was not done prior to 30-6-2009.

7. Being aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief(s) as indicated above.

8. Respondents have filed their reply affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that since investigation was carried out by DGGI against the petitioner letter dated 5-2-2020 was issued to the DGGI to confirm as to whether the duty quantified by the petitioner vide the statement dated 26-11-2018 was final and also to confirm the payment made and whether show cause notice if any was issued in the matter. DGGI issued letter dated 19-12-2020 informing that quantification was not finalized by DGGI before 30-6-2019, further stating that petitioner had not paid the differential service tax. Since quantification of dues was not done prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30-6-2019, petitioner was not eligible to file declaration under the investigation, enquiry or audit category and therefore the designated committee rightly rejected its declaration. Prior to such rejection, petitioner was informed about its ineligibility on 21-2-2020 whereafter personal hearing was granted to the petitioner by the designated committee on 26-2-2020.

9. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to the reply affidavit filed by the respondents.

10. Mr. Raichandani, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised in this writ petition has already been answered by this Court in a series of judgments, some of which have been annexed to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that following the said decisions, Court may interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's declaration and direct the designated committee to consider the declaration of the petitioner as a valid declaration and thereafter grant the necessary relief(s).

11. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has extensively referred to the reply affidavit and submits that there has to be quantification of the dues of the petitioner by the proper authority either in the form of a show cause notice or through adjudication. Mere acknowledgment of any amount stated to be due and payable by the petitioner cannot be construed to be quantification of dues. He, therefore, supports the impugned decision of the designated committee.

12. Submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

13. Question as to whether eligibility of a declarant for making a declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of 'investigation, enquiry or audit' or maintainability of such a declaration on the ground that the amount of tax dues was not quantified on or before 30-6-2019 is no longer res integra.

14. In Thought Blurb v. Union of India, 2020 (10) TMI 1135 : 2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 499 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1286 ;] ">2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 499 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1286 ;] [LQ/BomHC/2020/1286 ;] (Bom.), this Court faced with a similar issue had referred to the relevant provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 as well as to the circular dated 27-8-2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (briefly 'the Board' hereinafter) whereafter it was held as under:-

"47. Reverting back to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Board, it is seen that certain clarifications were issued on various issues in the context of the scheme and the rules made thereunder. As per paragraph 10(g) of the said circular, the following issue was clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and the Rules made thereunder:-

'(g) Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where 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.'

48. Thus as per the above clarification, written communication in terms of section 121(r) will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. This has been also explained in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) prepared by the department on 24th December, 2019.

49. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that on the one hand there is a letter of respondent No. 3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at Rs. 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No. 3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of Rs. 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner's tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019.

50. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019."

15. Subsequently in M/s. G.R. Palle Electricals v. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST : 2021 (45) G.S.T.L. 10 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1411 ;] ">2021 (45) G.S.T.L. 10 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1411 ;] [LQ/BomHC/2020/1411 ;] (Bom.), this Court held as follows:-

"27. We have already noticed that proprietor of the petitioner in his statement recorded on 11-1-2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) to be outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. This was corroborated by the departmental authority in the letter dated 24-1-2018 which we have already noted and discussed. Therefore, present is a case where there is acknowledgment by the petitioner of the duty liability as well as by the department in its communication to the petitioner. Thus, it can be said that in the case of the petitioner the amount of duty involved had been quantified on or before 30-6-2019. In such circumstances, rejection of the application (declaration) of the petitioner on the ground of being ineligible with the remark that investigation was still going on and the duty amount was pending for quantification would not be justified.

28. This position has also been explained by the department itself in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Question Nos. 3 and 45 and the answers provided thereto are relevant and those are reproduced hereunder:-

"Q3. If an enquiry or investigation or audit has started but the tax dues have not been quantified whether the person is eligible to opt for the Scheme

Ans. No. If an audit, enquiry or investigation has started, and the amount of duty/duty payable has not been quantified on or before 30th June, 2019, the person shall not be eligible to opt for the Scheme under the enquiry or investigation or audit category. 'Quantified' means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment [Section 121(r)]. 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. [Para 10(g) of Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX : , dated 27th August, 2019].

* * *

Q45. With respect to cases under enquiry, investigation or audit what is meant by 'written communication' quantifying demand

Ans. Written communication will include a letter intimating duty/tax demand or duty/tax liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report etc."

16. Finally in Saksham Facility Private Limited v. Union of India, : 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST : 2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 228 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1473 ;] ">2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 228 [LQ/BomHC/2020/1473 ;] [LQ/BomHC/2020/1473 ;] (Bom.), where a similar issue had cropped up, this Court reiterated the above position and held as under:-

"22.3. Clause (g) of paragraph 10 makes it abundantly clear that cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand had been quantified on or before 30-6-2019 would be eligible under the scheme. The word "quantified" has been defined under the scheme as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. In such circumstances, Board clarified that such written communication would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc.

23. Reverting back to the facts of the present case we find that there is clear admission/acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment is dated 27-6-2019 i.e., before 30-6-2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well as statement of its Director, Shri Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence Officer as to whether petitioner accepted and admitted the revised service tax liability of Rs. 2,47,32,456.00, the Director in his statement had clearly admitted and accepted the said amount as the service tax liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of Rs. 1,20,60,000.00 was already paid.

* * * * *

26. Following the above it is evident that the word 'quantified' under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report and not necessarily the amount crystallized following adjudication. Thus, petitioner was eligible to file the declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit as its service tax dues stood quantified before 30-6-2019."

17. From the above it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible in terms of the scheme under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. For eligibility under the scheme, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show cause notice or the amount that may be determined upon adjudication.

18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that in the course of the investigation, statement of Shri Nipun Radhu, authorized representative of the petitioner was recorded on 26-11-2018 by the Senior Intelligence Officer in the office of DGGI. The statement was recorded under Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. In the course of his statement, the authorized representative acknowledged that service tax liability of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 was to the tune of Rs. 1,61,01,194.00 and for the year 2017-18 (upto June, 2018), the service tax liability was to the extent of Rs. 14,60,823.00. This admission was reiterated by Shri Nipun Radhu in his subsequent statement recorded on 13-3-2019. Both the statements were made prior to the cut-off date of 30-6-2019. Therefore, petitioner was clearly eligible to file a declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit.

19. There is one more aspect which we would like to advert. While rejecting the declaration of the petitioner as being ineligible, the designated committee had sought for the views of the DGGI by letter dated 5-2-2020. DGGI responded on 19-12-2020 stating that quantification of tax dues was not finalized prior to 30-6-2019. On that basis petitioner was held to be ineligible and its declaration was rejected. Though petitioner was granted a personal hearing by the designated committee on 26-2-2020, there is nothing on record to show that the above information or letter of DGGI was furnished to the petitioner. It is a well settled principle of natural justice that if an authority relies upon a document which is adverse to the person concerned and results in an adverse decision, copy of such a document is required to be furnished to the person concerned so that he can put up an effective defence. Devoid of the same, any personal hearing granted would be an empty formality.

20. In that view of the matter, rejection of the declaration of the petitioner dated 13-12-2019 by the designated committee on 27-2-2020 is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 27-2-2020 and remand the matter back to respondent No. 5 to consider the declaration of the petitioner afresh in terms of the scheme as a valid declaration under the category of 'investigation, enquiry or audit' and grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner. While doing so the respondents shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order with due communication to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.