False declarations under dispute resolution scheme can defeat relief, and rectification beyond thirty days may still stand.

Rectification under the dispute resolution scheme was sustained even though it occurred beyond the thirty-day period, because the original statement had been issued on a mistaken and materially false factual premise. The Court treated the time limit for correcting arithmetical or clerical errors as not mandatory in these circumstances, where the scheme could not be used to preserve an incorrect benefit obtained through false particulars. It also held that the petitioner, having failed to controvert non-filing of returns and having made materially incorrect declarations, could not insist on a discharge certificate or other relief under the scheme. The writ petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Committee could rectify the statement issued under the dispute resolution scheme beyond the period of thirty days prescribed for rectification. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under the scheme despite the finding of non-filing of returns and false declarations.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Committee could rectify the statement issued under the dispute resolution scheme beyond the period of thirty days prescribed for rectification.

Analysis: The scheme permitted rectification of arithmetical or clerical errors apparent on the face of the record within thirty days of issuance of the statement. The Court noted that the rectified statements were issued beyond that period, but held that the time prescription was not mandatory in the circumstances. The rectification was made after it was noticed that the original declarations had been accepted on a mistaken premise and that the statutory scheme could not be used to perpetuate an incorrect benefit obtained on the basis of false particulars.

Conclusion: The rectification beyond thirty days was upheld and was not held to be invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under the scheme despite the finding of non-filing of returns and false declarations.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had not controverted the non-filing of the manual returns and that the declarations under the scheme were materially incorrect. It relied on the statutory consequence that false material particulars could nullify the declaration, and applied the principle that fraud or misstatement vitiates the act. In that background, the petitioner could not insist on issuance of a discharge certificate on the basis of an incorrect declaration.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed under the scheme.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned rectified statements were sustained, leaving the Revenue's stand accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification under the scheme may be sustained beyond the prescribed period where the original declaration rests on false or incorrect particulars, because misstatement vitiates the benefit claimed under the scheme and the declarant cannot compel issuance of a discharge certificate on the basis of a fraudulent or materially incorrect declaration.

---