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: (i) Whether the petitioner could be denied the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the ground that payment made through RTGS was re-credited due to a technical issue. (ii) Whether the impugned communication and appellate order were liable to be quashed with a further opportunity to make payment under the scheme.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be denied the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the ground that payment made through RTGS was re-credited due to a technical issue.
Analysis: The scheme was treated as one intended to settle legacy disputes on payment of the quantified dues. The record showed that the petitioner had attempted payment within time, that the amount payable under the relevant declaration had in fact been debited, and that the failure was attributable to the payment system causing re-credit of the amount. In those circumstances, the petitioner's entitlement under the scheme could not be defeated merely because the payment did not get finally appropriated because of a technical malfunction.
Conclusion: The petitioner could not be denied the scheme benefit on account of the technical re-credit of the amount.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned communication and appellate order were liable to be quashed with a further opportunity to make payment under the scheme.
Analysis: Since the petitioner had made a bona fide attempt to discharge the amount and the failure arose from the system, the adverse communications rejecting the benefit were unsustainable. The proper course was to permit the petitioner to tender the amount again within a limited time and, upon such payment and satisfaction of the remaining scheme requirements, to close the matter under the scheme.
Conclusion: The impugned communication and appellate order were quashed and the petitioner was given time to make payment under the scheme.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the rejection of the scheme benefit was set aside and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to complete payment and obtain closure under the settlement scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide payment attempt under a beneficial settlement scheme cannot be defeated when the non-appropriation of the amount is caused by a technical failure of the payment system, and the declarant must be given a fair opportunity to complete the statutory payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
