Acquitted Petitioner Eligible for Settlement Under Tax Act Despite Pending Appeals; Future Conviction May Reopen Case.

The HC allowed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner, acquitted before filing declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was eligible to settle disputes despite pending appeals. The court found no merit in the respondents' objections, granting liberty to recall the order if future conviction occurs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner's declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 should be accepted despite the pendency of criminal cases.
2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's declarations was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights.
3. Whether the appeal against the petitioner's acquittal affects the petitioner's eligibility to settle the case under the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to accept their declarations filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case but faced an appeal by the Department. The respondents contended that the petitioner's case fell under Section 9(c) of the Act due to pending criminal cases. The rejection of the declarations was justified, according to the respondents, and challenging the rejection was necessary before seeking a mandamus. The appeal against the petitioner's acquittal was seen as a continuation of the prosecution, rendering the petitioner ineligible to settle under the Act.

In response, the petitioner cited a previous court decision to support their argument that the petitioner should not be deprived of settlement opportunities due to pending appeals. The court considered the arguments from both sides, reviewed the relevant provisions of the Act, and noted that the Act does not bar settlement for individuals acquitted before filing declarations. The court found no merit in the respondents' position and allowed the writ petition, granting liberty to recall the order if the petitioner is convicted by the Delhi High Court.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that there was no prohibition for individuals acquitted before filing declarations to settle disputes under the Act. The judgment provided the respondents with the option to recall the order if the petitioner is convicted in the future.

---