Court dismisses writ petition on Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme due to lack of grounds, emphasizing statutory limitations. Petitioner's explanation for delayed tax payment insufficient. Refund allowed under Finance Act.

The court dismissed the writ petition concerning the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, emphasizing the lack of grounds for relief and the statutory limitations on delay condonation. The petitioner's failure to provide a convincing explanation for the delayed tax payment led to the rejection of the request to condone the delay. The court distinguished previous cases and highlighted that provisions of a taxing statute should not be construed liberally. Despite the dismissal of the petition, the court allowed for the refund of the tax amount as permissible under the Finance Act.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, condonation of delay in payment of tax, application of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the scope of relief under article 226.

Interpretation of Voluntary Disclosure Scheme: The petitioner filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme as per section 67 of the Act, requiring tax payment by March 30, 1998, with interest. Failure to pay tax within three months renders the declaration void. The petitioner paid tax on March 31, 1998, without explanation for the delay. The Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected a request to condone the delay, citing the scheme's requirement of tax payment within 90 days.

Condonation of Delay: The court found no legal basis to grant relief under article 226, as the Board's decision to deny condonation was not erroneous. Doubts arose on invoking section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in the self-contained scheme. Without a convincing explanation for non-payment within the scheme's timeframe, extending the time limit or showing indulgence was unwarranted. The absence of a specific provision for delay condonation precluded relief under article 226, especially when no explanation for the delay was provided.

Application of Legal Precedents: The court distinguished the case of Laxmi Mittal v. CIT, where delay was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, from the present case lacking such grounds. Disagreeing with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interpretation, the court held that provisions of a taxing statute should not be construed liberally. Refunding the tax tendered by the petitioner was permissible under section 70 of the Finance Act, without hindrance.

Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of grounds for relief and the statutory limitations on delay condonation, while allowing for the refund of the tax amount.

---