Court affirms certificate amendments under Finance Act, rejects delayed payment challenges, orders issuance of certificates.

The court upheld the validity of amendments to original certificates under Section 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, finding them as permissible corrections rather than assessments reopening. However, it ruled in favor of petitioners challenging rejection of declarations due to delayed payments, directing issuance of necessary certificates under Section 90(2) of the Act within two months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of amendments to the original certificates issued under Section 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998.
2. Legality of rejecting declarations based on delayed payments as per amended orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Amendments to the Original Certificates:
The petitioners challenged the amendments made to the original certificates issued under Section 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. They argued that the amendments were tantamount to reopening the assessments, which is impermissible under Section 90(3) of the Act. The respondents countered by stating that the amendments were made to correct mistakes in the original certificates, as allowed by the second proviso to Section 90(1) of the Act, which grants the designated authority the power to amend certificates for reasons recorded in writing.

Upon review, the court found that the amendments were made because the original certificates did not properly adjust payments made under Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The amendments were issued following a clarification from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. The court concluded that these amendments did not constitute a reopening of assessments but were corrections permissible under the Act. Therefore, the amendments were valid.

2. Legality of Rejecting Declarations Based on Delayed Payments as per Amended Orders:
The petitioners also challenged the rejection of their declarations on the grounds of delayed payments as per the amended orders. The first respondent had rejected the declarations, citing delays of 5 days, 21 days, and 21 days in the respective cases, arguing that payments should have been made within 30 days from the date of the amendment orders as per Section 90(2) of the Act.

The court examined whether the time limit for payment under Section 90(2) applied to payments demanded by amendment orders. It found that Section 90(2) prescribes a 30-day time limit for payments determined by the original order under Section 90(1), but does not explicitly extend this limit to payments required by amendment orders. The court noted that if Parliament had intended to impose such a time limit on amendment orders, it would have explicitly stated so in the Act.

The court held that the absence of a specific time limit for payments under amendment orders implies that such payments should be made within a reasonable time. Since the amendment orders did not specify a time limit, the court found that the petitioners' payments, though delayed, were made within a reasonable time. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the scheme and the necessary certificates under Section 90(2) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the amendments to the original certificates (W.P. Nos. 24111, 24112, and 24113 of 2001), upholding the validity of the amendments. However, it allowed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of declarations based on delayed payments (W.P. Nos. 22150, 22151, and 22326 of 2001), directing the respondents to issue the necessary certificates under Section 90(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, within two months.

---