Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme declaration must be judged on its own contents, not earlier correspondence, before rejection for misdeclaration.

A declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it differs from earlier correspondence with the Department. The declaration must be assessed on its own contents and material particulars, and prior communications are not conclusive against the declarant. A discrepancy by itself, without wilful intent to cause loss to the public exchequer, does not establish misdeclaration. The High Court set aside the rejection and required the Appropriate Authority to process the declaration on its merits and make any lawful adjustment of amounts already deposited.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declaration filed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could be rejected at the threshold on the ground of alleged misdeclaration merely because it differed from earlier correspondence with the Department, and whether the petitioner was entitled to have the declaration processed on its own merits.

Analysis: The declaration in the prescribed form contained the material particulars required under the Scheme. The impugned rejection did not identify any incorrectness in the stated figures in the declaration itself, but relied on an earlier communication sent by the petitioner to the Department. The correctness of a declaration under the Scheme had to be judged from the declaration as filed, not by treating prior correspondence as conclusive against the assessee. Even assuming that the duty amount had already been paid or adjusted, that circumstance by itself did not establish a willful misdeclaration intended to cause loss to the public exchequer. The Department was required to process the declaration and decide eligibility and adjustments in accordance with the Scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration at the threshold was unjustified. The impugned communication was set aside and the Appropriate Authority was directed to process the petitioner's declaration under the Scheme according to law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded, the impugned rejection was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the authority for consideration of the declaration on its own merits with due adjustment of amounts already deposited.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration under a settlement scheme cannot be rejected for alleged misdeclaration solely on the basis of earlier correspondence; it must be assessed on the declaration itself, and a discrepancy unsupported by wilful intent to cause loss does not justify threshold exclusion.

---