The court emphasized that tax dues as quantified in any communication from the taxpayer would qualify as 'tax dues' if there is no dispute regarding the same, and that the Scheme covers cases where investigations, enquiries, and audits are pending.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"a. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature thereof, to quash the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019;

b. And issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature thereof to direct the Respondents to accept the application filed by the Petitioner and issue a discharge certificate in favor of Petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019;"

2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the decision of the Designated Committee (respondent no. 3) to reject its application dated 27.08.2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereafter `the Scheme'). The impugned decision dated 03.02.2020 was reflected on the online portal. The reasons for the rejection are discernable from the remarks, which read as under:

"According the letter from DGGI (Chennai), it appears that the demand was not finally quantified nor communicated to the party on or before 30.06.2019. Therefore, the case merits rejection"

3. The petitioner claims that there is no controversy as to the amount of tax dues and the computation of the amount of excise duty that was provided to the concerned authorities. The petitioner had also paid the duty, interest and penalty at the rate of 15% of tax, albeit under the GST Registration Number pertaining to its unit in Coimbatore. The respondent did not accept to offset the same against the petitioner's liability for the Delhi Unit; however, there was no controversy as to the quantum of the excise duty payable by the petitioner.

4. The question that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the `tax dues' were quantified for the purposes of the Scheme.

5. The respondents dispute the same. They accept that the petitioner had quantified the duty and had also informed the concerned authorities that it had paid an amount of Rs.35,73,730/- for the period April 2014 to June 2017. However, they contend that since investigations continued beyond 04.06.2019 and a show cause notice was issued on 09.08.2019, the tax dues were not quantified before 30.06.2019. The show-cause notice dated 09.08.2019 proposed a demand of Rs.35,02,692/- for the period July 2014 to June 2017. According to the respondent, since there was no official communication from the Department quantifying any tax liability prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 09.08.2019, the tax dues cannot be stated as quantified prior to the stipulated date for affording the benefit of the Scheme - 30.06.2019.

6. The context in which the aforesaid controversy arises, is briefly stated hereafter.

7. The officers of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) initiated an investigation against the petitioner company for non-payment of central excise duty and on 20.09.2017, conducted a search at the warehouse of the petitioner in Delhi. In addition, the officers also conducted searches at the petitioner's warehouse at Coimbatore as well at its corporate office.

8. On 14.03.2019, summons were issued to the petitioner's Warehouse Manager for the Delhi Warehouse (one Shri Atul Shukla) under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter `CEA'). His statement was recorded on the same date.

9. He had stated that the petitioner was engaged in the purchase and sale of Ayurveda products. The main activity of the petitioner company was purchase of items like soaps, oil, shampoo from various manufacturers. He had stated that the petitioner sends packing material to most manufacturers and they, in turn, supply the manufactured items in a complete packed form. However, one of the vendors - M/s Aryaman Soap Industry - supplied soaps in