TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 and the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 are quasi-judicial in nature or merely administrative; (ii) Whether the period of limitation extended by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic applies to payment under the settlement scheme so as to treat the petitioner's remittance as valid compliance.
Issue (i): Whether the proceedings under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 and the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 are quasi-judicial in nature or merely administrative.
Analysis: The scheme required a declaration by the assessee, verification by the designated committee, scrutiny of departmental records, estimation of the amount payable, and in contested cases an opportunity of hearing before the final statement was issued. The process was not based on mere subjective satisfaction or policy choice. It involved examination of legal liability, objective verification, and determination affecting civil rights and obligations. Those features satisfied the settled tests for a quasi-judicial function, including the duty to act judicially and decision-making on objective standards after inquiry.
Conclusion: The proceedings under the scheme are quasi-judicial and not merely administrative.
Issue (ii): Whether the period of limitation extended by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic applies to payment under the settlement scheme so as to treat the petitioner's remittance as valid compliance.
Analysis: The Supreme Court's orders extended limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and excluded the pandemic period for computation of limitation under general and special laws. Since the scheme proceedings were held to be quasi-judicial and culminated only upon payment and issuance of the discharge certificate, the extended period applied to the payment obligation as part of the ongoing proceeding. The petitioner's remittance was therefore within the extended period and could not be treated as belated for denying the scheme benefit.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to treat the payment as valid compliance under the extended limitation period.
Final Conclusion: The impugned recovery steps were set aside and the authorities were required to accept the petitioner's payment as compliance with the settlement scheme and issue the discharge certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory settlement mechanism requires verification, estimation, hearing, and objective determination of liability before discharge, the proceeding is quasi-judicial, and a Supreme Court order extending limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings applies to the statutory payment stage of that proceeding.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
