Voluntary disclosure scheme payments made after the prescribed time do not secure full acceptance, though belated deposits may be refunded or adjusted.

Payment made outside the prescribed terms of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 did not entitle the declarant to a certificate accepting the full declaration, because the declaration was not fully acted upon within the statutory time. The claim for full scheme benefit was therefore refused. However, amounts deposited in purported compliance with the Scheme, though made belatedly, were directed to be refunded or adjusted in accordance with law. The relief was thus limited to refund or adjustment of the delayed deposit, while acceptance of the full declared amount was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a certificate accepting the full declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 despite payment of part of the tax and interest beyond the prescribed period; (ii) whether the amount deposited beyond the statutory period was liable to be refunded or adjusted.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a certificate accepting the full declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 despite payment of part of the tax and interest beyond the prescribed period.

Analysis: The declaration was not fully acted upon within the statutorily prescribed time. The governing principle, as already settled by the Supreme Court, is that payment made otherwise than in terms of the Scheme does not confer entitlement to the full benefit of the Scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a certificate for the full declared amount and this relief was refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount deposited beyond the statutory period was liable to be refunded or adjusted.

Analysis: Although the assessee could not claim the benefit of the Scheme for the belated payment, the Supreme Court had directed that amounts deposited in purported compliance with the Scheme be refunded or adjusted in accordance with law. That direction governed the present case.

Conclusion: The respondent was directed to refund or adjust the amount of Rs. 7,42,000 in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of securing refund or adjustment of the belatedly deposited amount, while the claim for a certificate covering the full declaration failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment made outside the prescribed terms of a voluntary disclosure scheme does not entitle the declarant to full acceptance of the declaration, but sums already deposited in purported compliance may be refunded or adjusted in accordance with law.

---