Court rejects revised declaration under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act as non-est. Compliance order issued.

The court held that the revised declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was rejected as it was non-est in the eyes of the law. The original declaration was accepted, and the parties were directed to comply with the certificate issued. The court emphasized that no further declarations could be filed once a certificate was issued. The petitioner was required to deposit the determined amount within fifteen days, and the refund issue would be resolved upon compliance with the original certificate. The court refrained from further observations on the applicability of Section 9(c) due to the prosecution against a director.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of the revised declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
2. Entitlement to the benefit of the original declaration under the Scheme.
3. Applicability of Section 9(c) of the Scheme due to prosecution against a director of the petitioner company.
4. Adjustment of tax already paid by the petitioner.
5. Refund and interest on the refundable amount.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the revised declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020:

The petitioner filed a revised declaration on 23.01.2021 after the original declaration was accepted on 20.01.2021. The revised declaration was rejected based on Section 9(c) of the Scheme, citing the prosecution of a director under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted that the Scheme only allowed for one declaration in respect of tax arrears, and once a certificate was issued under Section 5(1), no further declarations could be filed. The court held that the revised declaration was non-est in the eyes of the law and any consequential order passed was of no significance.

2. Entitlement to the benefit of the original declaration under the Scheme:

The court observed that the original declaration filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2020 was accepted, and a certificate was issued on 20.01.2021. The Scheme provided that once a certificate was issued, it was conclusive and no matter covered by it could be reopened. The court directed the parties to comply with the certificate dated 20.01.2021, and the petitioner was required to deposit the amount determined within fifteen days.

3. Applicability of Section 9(c) of the Scheme due to prosecution against a director of the petitioner company:

The petitioner argued that the term "person" under Section 9(c) should be read as "declarant," and since the prosecution was against a director and not the company, the benefit of the Scheme should not be denied. The respondent contended that the prosecution against the director was sufficient to invoke Section 9(c). The court refrained from making further observations on this issue, given its finding that the revised declaration was non-est.

4. Adjustment of tax already paid by the petitioner:

The petitioner claimed that an amount of Rs. 23,26,380/- already paid was not adjusted at the time of acceptance of the original declaration, leading to a mismatch. The court noted that the petitioner was verbally informed to file a revised declaration to rectify the mismatch, but this was subsequently rejected. The court directed compliance with the original certificate, implying that the issue of adjustment should be addressed within that framework.

5. Refund and interest on the refundable amount:

The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 20,95,633/- with interest. The court did not specifically address the issue of interest but directed that the amount determined in the original certificate should be complied with. This implies that the refund issue would be resolved upon compliance with the certificate dated 20.01.2021.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the revised declaration filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and directed the parties to comply with the original certificate issued on 20.01.2021. The petitioner was required to deposit the amount determined within fifteen days, and the declaration would be deemed satisfied under the Scheme. The court refrained from making further observations on the applicability of Section 9(c) due to the prosecution against a director.

---