Legacy dispute resolution declaration cannot be rejected for portal-generated Commissionerate error when no correction option was available.

A declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 cannot be rejected merely because the electronic portal auto-populated the wrong Commissionerate and gave no effective facility to correct it. Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 excludes only specified ineligible categories, and a technical software-related defect is not itself a disqualification. Where the taxpayer's assertion that the portal generated the error remains uncontroverted, the declaration should be treated as properly filed and considered on merits. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with reconsideration directed under the Scheme according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the ground of selection of the wrong Commissionerate was sustainable when the declaration form was auto-populated by the portal and no effective option to change the Commissionerate was shown.

Analysis: Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 provides the framework for declarations under the legacy dispute resolution scheme and excludes only the specified ineligible categories. The declaration form under the Scheme Rules required entry of the registration number and selection of a Commissionerate. The Petitioner's specific assertion that the portal automatically picked the Thane Commissionerate from the registration details, and that there was no option to amend it, remained uncontroverted. In the absence of any material showing that the Petitioner could select the earlier Navi Mumbai Commissionerate, the rejection was attributed to a software-related lacuna rather than any disqualification under the scheme. A tax payer cannot be denied the benefit of a settlement scheme because of such a technical defect in the portal.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration was unsustainable and the declaration had to be treated as properly filed for examination on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the declaration was directed to be reconsidered under the Scheme according to law, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration under a beneficial tax settlement scheme cannot be rejected on a purely technical ground where the electronic portal itself creates the defect and the applicant is shown to have no effective ability to correct it, unless the applicant falls within an express statutory exclusion.

---