Mandatory compliance with scheme timelines defeats condonation claims; separate communication does not invalidate a competent authority's decision.

Under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the tax and interest had to be paid within the prescribed three-month period, and that time limit was treated as mandatory. A declarant seeking the scheme's benefit had to comply strictly with its terms, and neither equitable considerations nor writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could extend the period or create a condonation power not expressly provided. On the jurisdictional challenge, the Court held that the order had in fact been made by the competent Commissioner, with separate communication of the decision creating no infirmity. The challenge based on limitation and competence therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax payable under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could be paid beyond the period prescribed in the scheme and the delay condoned under writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction because it was not passed by the competent authority.

Issue (i): Whether the tax payable under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could be paid beyond the period prescribed in the scheme and the delay condoned under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The scheme required a declarant who filed the declaration without payment of tax to pay the tax together with interest within three months. The prescribed time limit was held to be mandatory. A person seeking the benefit of the scheme had to comply strictly with its terms, and neither equitable considerations nor writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be used to enlarge the period fixed by the scheme. The authority under the scheme also had no power to travel beyond the scheme and imply a condonation power not expressly provided.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned and the assessee was not entitled to payment beyond the prescribed period.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction because it was not passed by the competent authority.

Analysis: The records were examined and the finding was that the order had been passed by the competent Commissioner, while communication of the decision was made separately. The Court accepted the distinction between the making of a decision and its communication, and found no jurisdictional infirmity in the order.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the order was held to have been passed by the competent authority.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to relief either on limitation under the scheme or on the jurisdictional challenge, and the writ appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme prescribes a fixed time for availing a concessional benefit, the time limit is mandatory, cannot be enlarged on equitable grounds, and courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot confer a power of condonation not provided by the scheme.

---