TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to extension of time for payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the plea of technical glitches and non-communication of the electronically uploaded statement, and whether writ relief could be granted against the adjudication order.
Analysis: The Scheme was held to be a self-contained code requiring electronic filing of the declaration in Form SVLDRS-1, electronic issuance of SVLDRS-3 by the designated committee, and payment within thirty days from the date of issuance of SVLDRS-3. The petitioner had opted into the Scheme with knowledge of its terms, and the allegation that technical glitches prevented payment was found unsupported by cogent evidence. The Court held that, once the declarant failed to comply with the mandatory timeline under the Scheme, the writ court would not extend the time prescribed under the Scheme in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on the view that extending time beyond the Scheme would amount to modifying the Scheme itself.
Conclusion: No extension of time was granted, and the challenge to the adjudication order failed.
Final Conclusion: The Scheme's payment timeline was treated as mandatory, and the petitioner's failure to pay within the stipulated period left no basis for writ relief against the demand proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A person seeking the benefit of a statutory settlement scheme must comply strictly with its prescribed conditions and timelines, and a writ court will not extend the scheme period in the absence of legally sustainable proof of impossibility or procedural defect.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
