High Court allows correction of inadvertent mistake in penalty amount under SVLDRS-1 form

The High Court allowed the petitioner to rectify an inadvertent mistake in declaring a penalty amount of &8377;0 instead of &8377;11,48,82,644.00 in the SVLDRS-1 form under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Court held that the mistake was not deliberate and directed the petitioner to submit a correction application within 15 days. The respondent authorities were ordered to review the application within two months. The rejection of a second form did not bar the correction process, emphasizing adherence to the Court's instructions for rectification.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 rejected due to incorrect declaration of penalty in SVLDRS-1 form.

Analysis:
The petitioner was penalized &8377;86,74,199/- for a transaction, but while submitting the SVLDRS-1 form under the Scheme 2019, inadvertently declared the penalty amount as '0'. Consequently, their claim for benefits under the scheme was rejected. The key issue was whether this inadvertent mistake could be rectified to allow the petitioner to avail the benefits.

The High Court referred to a previous judgment where it was discussed that mistakes in such declarations could be of two types: deliberate mistakes to claim undue benefits or inadvertent mistakes due to oversight. In this case, the petitioner's mistake of declaring the penalty as '0' when it was actually &8377;11,48,82,644.00 was deemed inadvertent and not an attempt to claim an undue benefit. The Court noted that the Scheme 2019 did not explicitly disqualify individuals with imposed penalties from availing benefits, and in fact, the exemption under the scheme might even apply to the penalty amount, potentially resulting in greater benefits for the petitioner if the penalty was correctly stated.

Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by the previous judgment, leading to the disposal of the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an application for correction of the penalty information in the SVLDRS-1 form within 15 days of obtaining the order's copy. The respondent authorities were instructed to pass a reasoned order on the application within two months of receiving it.

Additionally, it was noted that the petitioner had submitted a second SVLDRS-1 form with correct information, but it was rejected as not maintainable. However, this rejection did not prevent the petitioner from submitting an application for correction based on the first form. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should follow the process outlined in the order for correction of information.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to rectify the penalty information in the SVLDRS-1 form through a formal application, ensuring a fair review process by the respondent authorities.

---