Wrong scheme category and limitation error could not defeat restoration of a timely filed appeal under a settlement scheme.

A bona fide declaration filed under the wrong category in the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 did not defeat eligibility where the underlying appeal was pending on the cut-off date; the claimant was entitled to be considered under the pending-appeal category, subject to other conditions. The appellate dismissal as time barred was also unsustainable because the record showed the appeal was filed within the permissible period, so the delay refusal rested on an erroneous computation of limitation. The appellate order was quashed, the appeal restored, and the scheme claim directed to be reconsidered according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 under the category of an appeal pending as on 30 June 2019, despite having filed the declaration under a wrong category; (ii) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time barred and whether the appeal was liable to be restored.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 under the category of an appeal pending as on 30 June 2019, despite having filed the declaration under a wrong category.

Analysis: Eligibility under the scheme turned on whether the appeal arising from the order-in-original was pending on the cut-off date. The petitioner's appeal was pending on 30 June 2019 because it was dismissed only on 9 July 2019. The declaration had been filed under the arrears category instead of the pending-appeal category, but the mistake was found to be bona fide. Since the scheme had already generated Form SVLDR-3 on the basis of the declaration, the petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to have its claim considered under the correct category if no other ineligibility applied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be considered under the pending-appeal category of the scheme, subject to fulfilment of the other conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time barred and whether the appeal was liable to be restored.

Analysis: The record showed that the appeal had been received on 21 June 2018, and the order-in-original had been received on 24 March 2018. On that basis, the appeal was filed within the permissible period. The dismissal on the footing that the appeal was beyond limitation was therefore incorrect. The rejection of the delay condonation application proceeded on an erroneous assumption about the period available for filing the appeal. The impugned appellate order could not be sustained and the appeal had to be restored for decision on merits.

Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal as time barred was liable to be quashed and the appeal restored to the file of the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief on both the scheme-eligibility question and the limitation issue, resulting in restoration of the appeal and a direction for reconsideration of the scheme claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration under the wrong category in a settlement scheme does not defeat entitlement where the substantive eligibility condition is satisfied and the mistake is bona fide; similarly, an appeal filed within time cannot be rejected as barred by limitation on an erroneous computation of the filing period.

---