Directory scheme deadlines and pandemic limitation extensions can protect delayed settlement payments from rejection.

Payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was treated as admissible even though remitted after the original deadline, because the delay arose during the COVID-19 period and the limitation-extension orders covered the relevant interval. The court treated the scheme's time-limit as directory rather than mandatory and held that the departmental refusal ignored the effect of the pandemic-era extension of limitation. As a result, the delayed payment could not be rejected merely for being beyond the notified date, and the rejection endorsement was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the payment made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme after the notified deadline could still be accepted in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitation-extension orders.

Analysis: The payment under the scheme was rejected solely because it was made after 30.06.2020. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had extended limitation during the pandemic up to 28.02.2022 and that High Courts had granted relief in similar SVLDRS matters where payment was made beyond the original deadline. The Court treated the time-limit prescription under the scheme as directory rather than mandatory and held that the pandemic-related restriction and the petitioner's subsequent remittance justified acceptance of the payment. The Court also found that the departmental refusal ignored the effect of the pandemic-era extension orders.

Conclusion: The delayed payment was required to be accepted and the rejection endorsement could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory time limit under a settlement scheme is directory and pandemic-related judicial extension of limitation covers the relevant period, delayed payment made in pursuit of the scheme cannot be rejected merely for being beyond the original deadline.

---