Court quashes order under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme due to procedural delays

The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, due to procedural delays and the petitioner's illness. The court directed settlement of the matter as per law, disposing of the writ petition without any order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998.
2. Applicability of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, to the petitioner.
3. Interpretation of "admitted and pending" in Section 95(i)(c).
4. Consideration of petitioner's declaration under Section 88 of the Act.
5. Procedural delays and their impact on the petitioner's case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998:
The petitioner challenged Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, asserting that it was ultra vires and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the provision should be read purposively to include pending writ petitions even if they were not admitted by the cut-off date.

2. Applicability of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, to the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought relief under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which aimed at quick and voluntary settlement of tax dues. The petitioner argued that the scheme should apply to his case as he had filed a writ petition before the cut-off date, though it was admitted later. The respondents, however, contended that the scheme was not applicable as the writ petition was not admitted and pending by the cut-off date.

3. Interpretation of "admitted and pending" in Section 95(i)(c):
The court examined the language of Section 95(i)(c), which required that an appeal, reference, or writ petition must be "admitted and pending" before the cut-off date. The petitioner argued for a broader interpretation, suggesting that the provision should include writ petitions filed but not yet admitted due to procedural delays. The court, however, highlighted that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, and thus, a literal interpretation was necessary.

4. Consideration of Petitioner's Declaration under Section 88 of the Act:
The petitioner also sought consideration of his declaration under Section 88 of the Act on merits. The court noted that the petitioner had filed an application under the scheme during the pendency of his writ petition, which the authorities rejected on April 16, 2003. The court emphasized that the rejection was based on the writ petition not being admitted by the cut-off date.

5. Procedural Delays and Their Impact on the Petitioner's Case:
The court acknowledged the procedural delays that affected the petitioner's case. The writ petition was filed on December 14, 1998, but was admitted only on April 5, 1999, due to procedural impediments and the petitioner's illness. The court recognized these unique circumstances and concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application under the scheme was not justified.

Conclusion:
The court held that the order rejecting the petitioner's application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, should be quashed due to the special facts and circumstances of the case, including procedural delays and the petitioner's illness. The court directed that the matter be settled as per law. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

---