Beneficial settlement scheme relief upheld: bona fide omission and comparable-case consistency justified extension of time with interest.

A review was entertained where the applicants produced an e-mail and outbox record showing that a request for more time to pay dues under the scheme had in fact been sent, and the earlier non-production was treated as a bona fide inadvertent omission. The objection that the e-mail was not received was rejected on the material placed before the Court. On the merits, the Court relied on prior similar relief, consistency in comparable cases, and departmental instructions recognising manual processing and pandemic-related difficulties, and permitted remittance of the balance with interest. The declarations were directed to be accepted within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review applicants were entitled to have the earlier dismissal order reconsidered in the light of the subsequently produced e-mail showing a request for more time to pay the dues under the Scheme; (ii) whether, on the facts, the time for remittance under the Scheme could be extended and the declarations accepted on payment of the balance amount with interest.

Issue (i): whether the review applicants were entitled to have the earlier dismissal order reconsidered in the light of the subsequently produced e-mail showing a request for more time to pay the dues under the Scheme.

Analysis: The e-mail and supporting outbox record established that the request for more time had in fact been sent, and the earlier omission to place it before the Court was treated as a bona fide and inadvertent error. The objection that the e-mail had not been received was rejected on the basis of the material produced.

Conclusion: The review applicants were entitled to reconsideration of the earlier order on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts, the time for remittance under the Scheme could be extended and the declarations accepted on payment of the balance amount with interest.

Analysis: The decision proceeded on the basis of prior relief granted in similar matters, the accepted position that consistency was required in comparable cases, and the departmental instructions recognising manual processing and the difficulties caused by the pandemic. The Court also noted that the applicants had been permitted to remit the balance with interest and had complied by producing challans.

Conclusion: The time for remittance was extended on payment of interest, and the declarations were directed to be accepted.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed and consequential acceptance of the applicants' declarations under the Scheme was directed within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a declarant under a beneficial settlement scheme had sought extension of time before the cut-off date and later established bona fide omission to place material evidence before the Court, the Court could, in the interest of consistency and fairness, permit remittance with interest and direct acceptance of the declaration.

---