Petition dismissed: beneficiary ineligible under DTVSV Act where no appeal was pending on statutory cut-off date

HC dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the DTVSV Act because no appeal was pending on the statutory cut-off date. Although the Tribunal's formal certified order was delivered later, the petitioner knew of the Tribunal's disposals (Full Bench order and Division Bench order) and therefore could not treat the appeal as pending when filing Forms 1 and 2. The court held delayed service did not revive a concluded appeal, and allowing the application would defeat the statutory scheme; petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The rejection of application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 is challenged by the petitioner in this Article 226 petition.

Details of the judgment:

Challenge to Rejection of Application:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner claimed that they were not served with the orders passed by the Tribunal and were unaware of the outcome of the appeal. The petitioner filed Form 1 and 2 for resolution of the dispute, stating that the appeals filed by the Revenue were pending on 21st December 2020. The petitioner argued that they filed the appeal before the High Court as soon as they received a copy of the Tribunal's order. The petitioner contended that due to non-receipt of the order, they were justified in stating that the appeals were pending when filing the forms under the DTVSV Act.

Respondent's Argument and Rejection:
The respondent contended that the petitioner provided false information in Form 1 under the DTVSV Act by stating that certain appeals were pending before the Tribunal. The respondent argued that the appeals were disposed of in 2019, and the petitioner was aware of this fact. Therefore, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the forms filed by the petitioner.

Analysis and Decision:
Upon considering the provisions of the DTVSV Act and Rules, the Court noted that no appeal was pending before the Tribunal or High Court when the petitioner filed Form 1 and 2. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the Tribunal's decision in June 2019, even though they received the order later. The Court emphasized that the DTVSV Act is not applicable to cases where appeals are not pending on the specified date. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no interference was deemed necessary.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely and accurate information in applications under the DTVSV Act, emphasizing that the benefits of the Act are contingent upon the pendency of appeals on the specified date.

---