TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be granted an extension of time to deposit the amount determined under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and whether the writ petition should be treated as a representation to the concerned authority.
Analysis: The Court noted that, ordinarily, it would not issue a direction extending the time prescribed under the Scheme, as such extension lies within the prerogative of the authorities having regard to the ground realities. At the same time, considering the circumstances placed before it, including the petitioner's asserted medical condition and the fact that correspondence had been addressed soon after the expiry of the deposit period, the Court found it appropriate to direct the designated committee or other concerned authority to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide it. The authority was also required to consider whether any leeway had been granted in comparable cases and whether similar treatment could be extended to the petitioner.
Conclusion: No direct extension of time was granted by the Court, but the matter was referred to the concerned authority for consideration as a representation and for decision in accordance with comparable cases.
Final Conclusion: The petition was not adjudicated on merits for granting the substantive relief sought, and the petitioner was left to pursue the matter before the competent authority for appropriate consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where extension of time under a statutory dispute-resolution scheme is within administrative discretion, the Court may decline to grant direct extension while directing the authority to consider the matter as a representation and examine parity with comparable cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
