Time-bound amnesty scheme benefits must follow cut-off dates; later documents cannot extend relief or justify rectification.
A time-bound amnesty scheme under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 had to be applied strictly within its prescribed cut-off dates and verification process. Later-produced support for the 'C' forms could not be used to enlarge the scheme's benefit after the deadline, because the authority had already acted on the material available within the stipulated timetable. Rectification was confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record, and a request seeking reconsideration on the basis of a subsequent document did not satisfy that standard. The impugned orders were therefore sustained and the writ petitions failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the orders passed under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 were illegal for not granting the benefit of the scheme in full and for ignoring the later certificate produced in support of the 'C' forms. (ii) Whether the rejection of the rectification application suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Issue (i): Whether the orders passed under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 were illegal for not granting the benefit of the scheme in full and for ignoring the later certificate produced in support of the 'C' forms.
Analysis: The scheme required pending appeals to be processed within the stipulated timetable, with details of 'C' forms to be furnished by the prescribed date and their genuineness to be verified from the prescribed sources. The appellate authority had already verified the available material and passed the order within the outer limit fixed by the scheme. The later certificate dated 17.02.2020 was produced after the cut-off date and could not be used to enlarge the benefit of the scheme beyond the prescribed time frame.
Conclusion: The challenge to the partial grant of benefit under the scheme fails and the order dated 15.02.2020 is sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the rectification application suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: Rectification was available only for a patent mistake apparent from the record. Since the authority had already considered the material permitted under the scheme and the grievance essentially sought reconsideration on the basis of a subsequent document, no apparent error was shown. The authority was therefore justified in refusing rectification.
Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application is upheld.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions fail because the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the time-bound scheme and no rectifiable error was demonstrated.
Ratio Decidendi: A time-bound amnesty scheme must be applied strictly according to its prescribed cut-off dates and verification mechanism, and a later-produced document cannot be relied upon to extend the scheme's benefit or to create an error apparent warranting rectification.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
