Pendency of appeal under the settlement scheme cannot be negated merely because limitation is later questioned.

For the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, an appeal filed before the appellate forum could not be treated as non-pending merely because its limitation was later questioned or condonation of delay was involved. The Court applied the principle that pendency is for the appellate forum to decide, and the mere possibility that an appeal may ultimately be found time-barred does not mean no appeal was admitted and pending on the date of declaration. The rejection of the declarations was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed with a direction to accept the declarations.

---

---

Issues: Whether declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could be rejected on the ground that no appeal was admitted and pending on the date of filing of the declarations when the appeals filed before the Tribunal were later found to be within time after condonation of delay.

Analysis: Section 95(1)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 excludes cases where no appeal, reference, writ petition, or revision is admitted and pending on the date of declaration. The dispute turned on whether an appeal filed before the appellate forum, but questioned as time-barred, could be treated as non-existent for the purpose of the Scheme. The Court followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that the question whether an appeal is validly pending is for the appellate forum to decide, and the mere possibility that it may ultimately be held time-barred does not mean that no appeal was pending when the declaration was filed.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declarations was unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and the Designated Authority was directed to accept the declarations.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to have the declarations considered under the settlement scheme, and the denial of benefit on the ground of absence of a pending appeal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 95(1)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, an appeal that has been filed and is before the appellate forum cannot be treated as non-pending merely because its maintainability or limitation is later questioned; a time-bar objection does not by itself negate pendency on the date of declaration.

---