Authority cannot excuse tax payment delays under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998

The court held that the designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, does not have the power to condone delays in tax payments as there is no provision for such discretion. Additionally, it was determined that the tax payment was not made within the prescribed time limit, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the designated authority under the provisions of the Scheme has power to condone the delay.
2. Whether in the instant case the amount of tax has been paid within the period of limitation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power to Condon the Delay:
The petitioners challenged the legality of the order dated January 3, 2000, and the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in making tax payments under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The Scheme, introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998, provides for settlement of tax arrears and specifies the time and manner of payment. Section 90(2) of the Act mandates that the tax payable under the Scheme must be paid within thirty days of the passing of an order by the designated authority. The petitioners argued that their payment delay should be condoned due to non-availability of funds and later claimed that the certificate was served late. However, the court noted that the Scheme does not contain any provision allowing the designated authority to condone delays. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions of the Scheme must be strictly complied with, and there is no scope for equitable considerations. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Hemalatha Gargya, the court held that in the absence of an express provision for condonation, the authority has no power to condone delays. Thus, the court concluded that the designated authority under the Scheme cannot condone delays in tax payments.

2. Payment Within the Period of Limitation:
The second issue concerned whether the petitioners paid the tax within the prescribed time limit under the Scheme. The petitioners claimed they received the certificate on March 17, 1999, and made the payment on March 23, 1999, within the limitation period. However, the Revenue contended that the certificate dated February 3, 1999, was served on February 6, 1999, and the payment was made beyond the prescribed time limit. The court observed that in their initial applications dated February 28, 2000, the petitioners admitted the delay was due to non-availability of funds and requested condonation. It was only after two years that the petitioners claimed the certificate was served late. The court found the affidavits submitted by the petitioners to support their claim to be vague and unreliable. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioners' plea of late service was an afterthought and held that the tax payment was not made within the stipulated time. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit.

---