Court Allows Delay in Tax Payment Due to Unforeseen Circumstances, Including Deadline on Sunday and Injury.

The HC quashed the order dated 25.8.2022, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of a three-day delay in depositing balance tax under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court acknowledged unforeseen circumstances, including the last date falling on a Sunday and a subsequent injury. It directed respondents to accept the tax payment as timely, allowing the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of rejection of application for condonation of delay in depositing balance tax under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
2. Consideration of unforeseen circumstances as a valid reason for delay.

Summary:

1. Validity of rejection of application for condonation of delay in depositing balance tax under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020:

The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.8.2022, which rejected their application for condoning a three-day delay in depositing the balance amount under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner submitted his declaration on 5.6.2020, and the designated authority issued a certificate in Form-III on 9.11.2020, requiring payment by 31.12.2020. The last date was extended multiple times, with the final extension to 31.10.2021. The petitioner dropped a cheque in the bank's drop box on 31.10.2021, a Sunday, but the challan was issued on 3.11.2021. The petitioner also suffered an accident on 1.11.2021, leading to a delay in approaching the bank.

2. Consideration of unforeseen circumstances as a valid reason for delay:

The petitioner argued that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances, including the last date falling on a Sunday and a knee injury. The Delhi High Court's judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 3560 of 2022 and the Supreme Court's judgment in Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs. Union of India were cited, where delays due to extraneous circumstances were condoned. The court noted that the Ministry of Finance's notifications extended the last date for payment, and the petitioner had complied with the requirements, including dropping the cheque on the last date.

Conclusion:

The court held that the delay of three days in depositing the balance tax was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The court quashed the impugned order dated 25.8.2022 and directed the respondents to accept the balance tax deposited by the petitioner, treating it as within time under the scheme of the Act, 2020. The writ petition was allowed.

---