Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme pendency requires a bona fide admitted proceeding; notice subject to maintainability is not enough.

For the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, only a bona fide appeal, reference, or writ petition that was admitted and pending on the relevant date could support a declaration under Section 88, and Section 95(ii)(c) excluded cases lacking such pendency. A writ petition supported only by a pre-rule notice issued subject to maintainability was not treated as admitted or pending. The Court also treated a belated filing after the impugned orders had attained finality as an impermissible attempt to create artificial pendency. On that basis, the declarations were held ineligible under the Scheme and the rejection challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ petitions that had not been admitted and were only issued notice subject to maintainability could be treated as pending for the purpose of availing the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and whether a belated filing after the impugned orders had attained finality created an eligible pendency under the Scheme.

Analysis: Section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 permitted declarations in respect of tax arrears, but Section 95(ii)(c) excluded cases where no appeal, reference, or writ petition was admitted and pending before the specified fora. The notice issued in the writ petitions was only a pre-rule notice under Rule 13 of the Writ Proceeding Rules of 1977 and was expressly subject to maintainability; therefore, the writ petitions were not admitted or pending on the relevant date. The Court also treated the long delay in filing the writ petitions after the orders had become final as an attempt to create artificial pendency, which was impermissible for obtaining the scheme benefit.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not pending within the meaning of the Scheme, the declarations were not eligible, and the challenge to their rejection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, only a bona fide admitted and pending proceeding qualifies, and a notice issued subject to maintainability does not amount to pendency; artificial pendency created after finality of the impugned action cannot confer eligibility.

---