Court denies mandamus for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, citing missed deadlines and lack of vested rights. .

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to direct tax acceptance under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act was denied, leading to scheme participation. Despite missed payment deadlines, the court ruled against extending time, emphasizing scheme limitations and lack of vested rights for late payment. Judicially enforceable rights are crucial for mandamus relief, which the petitioner lacked, resulting in petition dismissal due to insufficient merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks mandamus to direct acceptance of tax under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
2. Dispute over deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Appeal dismissed, remanded back to First Appellate Authority, challenged by revenue.
4. Petitioner opts for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, offer accepted, payment details provided.
5. Deadlines for payment extended, petitioner misses both, seeks permission for late payment.
6. Contention regarding open-ended offer under Form-3.
7. Interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
8. Claim of extension of time as a vested right for writ petition under Article 226.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the acceptance of tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dispute arose from the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was denied during processing under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequent appeals and challenges led to the petitioner opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with the offer being accepted, and payment details provided in statutory forms. However, the petitioner missed the extended deadlines for payment, citing reasons of illness in the family. The contention that the offer under Form-3 remained open-ended was dismissed by the court. The judgment delved into the interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, emphasizing the timelines and procedures for payment under the scheme.

The court highlighted that the settlement under the scheme had a terminal point, either before 31.03.2021 or the extended deadline of 31.10.2021. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner had no vested right to claim an extension of the last date or seek payment with late fees, as no enforceable legal right existed for such a claim. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the necessity of a judicially enforceable and legally protected right for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. As the petitioner lacked such a right, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.

---