2003 (1) TMI 88 - HC - Income Tax

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, dated May 4, 1999, annexure 1, to the writ petition. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to entertain the petitioners application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, treating it to be within limitation and to quash the recovery proceedings including the attachment order - It is also a matter of common knowledge that postal certificates can easily be manufactured with an ante-dated date and hence no reliance can be placed on the same. - Since the declaration reached respondent No. 1 after the prescribed date it was clearly not maintainable. Thus there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 regarding the timeline for making declarations.
2. Determining the validity of a declaration sent under the scheme after the prescribed deadline.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 regarding the timeline for making declarations.
The case involved a partnership firm challenging the rejection of its application under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The scheme provided for the settlement of disputed arrears of tax, with a specific timeline for making declarations. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 stated that declarations had to be made to the designated authority on or before December 31, 1998, with an extension to January 31, 1999. The petitioner argued that sending the declaration by postal certificate on January 22, 1999, should be considered timely. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the declaration had to reach the designated authority by the prescribed date.

Issue 2: Determining the validity of a declaration sent under the scheme after the prescribed deadline.
The court examined the timeline of when the petitioner's declaration reached the designated authority. The respondent stated that the declaration was received on February 5, 1999, after the last prescribed date. The court highlighted that the responsibility lay with the petitioner to ensure the timely receipt of the declaration by the designated authority. Merely posting a letter did not constitute making a declaration under the Act. The court noted the proximity of the petitioner's location to the authority's office, suggesting alternative methods of submission. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the delayed declaration was not maintainable under the scheme's provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines for making declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It underscored the responsibility of the declarant to ensure timely receipt by the designated authority and highlighted the distinction between posting a letter and the actual receipt by the authority. The decision emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements in availing benefits under such schemes.