Court denies extension for delayed payment under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Payment deadlines are strict.

The court dismissed the petitioner's request for a direction to accept delayed payment of the 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Emphasizing the legislative scheme's strict provisions, the court held that no extension of time for payment was allowed under the Scheme. Referring to precedent, the court highlighted that failing to pay within the specified dates would render the declaration void. The petitioner was advised to explore options such as applying for a refund or adjustment through the appropriate authorities. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of in line with the legislative framework, denying the requested relief.

---

---

Issues:
Prayer for direction to accept delayed payment of 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to accept the delayed payment of the 3rd installment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The petitioner, an individual, had declared undisclosed income under the Scheme and was required to pay a total sum of &8377; 63,68,232 in three installments. While the petitioner paid the first two installments, financial difficulties prevented the payment of the third installment. The petitioner requested an extension of time for payment, which was not provided for in the Scheme. The court noted that the Scheme did not allow for any extension of time for payment of tax, as failing to pay within the specified dates would render the declaration void. Citing the decision in Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 9 SCC 510, the court emphasized that no extension of time could be granted contrary to the legislative scheme.

The court highlighted that Section 187 of the Scheme specifically stated that failure to pay tax, surcharge, and penalty within the specified dates would invalidate the declaration. The court emphasized that the legislature did not envision any extension of time for payment under the Scheme. While the petitioner's counsel suggested applying for a refund or adjustment of the amount already deposited, the court refrained from commenting on this and stated that the petitioner could approach the authorities for such matters. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, indicating that no direction contrary to the legislative scheme could be granted in this case.

---