Sabka Vishwas scheme benefit cannot be denied when Form SVLDRS-3 was not issued due to the department's lapse.

Where a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was accepted by the designated committee and the eligible amount was found in order, the declarant could not be denied scheme relief merely because Form SVLDRS-3 was not issued due to the respondents' lapse. The obligation to pay within the prescribed period arose only on issuance of that form, so no statutory default occurred and interest at 9% per annum could not be imposed. The operative effect was that the scheme benefit had to be extended and the declaration could not be rejected on the basis of the omission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the designated committee accepted the declared amount but did not issue Form SVLDRS-3 due to an error on the part of the respondents; (ii) Whether the petitioner could be directed to pay interest at 9% per annum despite non-issuance of Form SVLDRS-3.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 when the designated committee accepted the declared amount but did not issue Form SVLDRS-3 due to an error on the part of the respondents.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the petitioner was accepted and the amount declared was found eligible by the designated committee. The material on record showed that Form SVLDRS-3 ought to have been issued, but it was not issued because of a lapse on the respondents' side. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not be denied the statutory benefit of the scheme merely because the administrative machinery failed to complete the prescribed issuance of the form.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the scheme and to a direction requiring acceptance of the eligible amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be directed to pay interest at 9% per annum despite non-issuance of Form SVLDRS-3.

Analysis: The obligation to make payment within the prescribed period under section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019 arises only after issuance of Form SVLDRS-3. Since that form was never issued, the statutory time for payment never commenced. As there was no default on the petitioner's part, no basis existed to impose interest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to pay interest at 9% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The respondents were directed to extend the scheme benefit to the petitioner and the rejection of the declaration could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the designated committee accepts a declaration under the scheme but fails to issue the prescribed statement due to its own error, the declarant cannot be denied the scheme benefit and no interest liability arises until the statutory payment obligation is triggered.

---