Strict compliance with the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is mandatory, and there is no scope for liberal interpretation to extend the time-limit stipulated under the Scheme.

D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), sought to avail of the benefits of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ('the Scheme' for short), as formulated by finance (No, 2) Act of 1998.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition which are not in dispute are that the assessee had invoked the provisions of the Scheme, that determination of the amount payable under Section 88 of the Scheme had been made and communicated to the assessee and that the assessee paid the amount six days beyond the permitted period of thirty days as is required under sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme. The CIT, Hubli, the designated authority to pass orders and issue certificates as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme having noticed that the payment had been made six days beyond the permitted time of thirty days, having declined to issue the certificate contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme as per his order dt. 10th Feb. , 2003 (copy at Annex.-B) petitioner is before this Court questioning the legality of this communication at Annex.-B.

( 3 ) SRI M. V. Javali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has put forth several contentions urging that the impugned order is not one valid in the eye of law and requires to be quashed and that a direction is to be issued to the designated authority to accept the amount of tax that the petitioner has paid and for issuing a certificate contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme.

( 4 ) IN this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme is required to be interpreted in this case, particularly the meaning attributed to the word "shall" used in Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Scheme. Section 90 (2) of the Scheme reads as under:

"90 (2): The declarant shall pay, the sum determined by the designated authority within thirty days of the passing of an order by the designated authority and intimate the fact of such payment to the designated authority along with proof thereof and the designated authority shall thereupon issue the certificate to the declarant. "

( 5 ) IT is the submission of Sri Javali, learned counsel for petitioner, that the word "shall" should be interpreted as 'may' and a little leeway should be required to be allowed to the provisions in the matter of payment of the sum determined by the designated authority within thirty days and the delay of six days in making that payment was a justifiable delay according to the petitioner; that the petitioner had a valid and convincing explanation for the delay and having regard to the objects of the Scheme that it is meant to provide succour to the assessees and expedite the collection of revenue to the State, such an interpretation should be given to the provisions of the scheme so as to accept payment even after a delay of six days beyond the thirty days, to further the objects of the scheme and, therefore, the impugned order of the designated authority requires to be quashed and necessary directions issued to the respondents. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 649 (Bom) (2) Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT and Anr. (2003 )182 CTR (SC )107 , 2003 (5 )SCALE15 , (2003 )9 SCC510 (3) Banwarilal Agarwalla v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR1961 SC 849 , [1961 (3 )FLR253 ], (1961 )II LLJ140 SC , [1962 ]1 SCR33

.

( 6 ) THOUGH no doubt the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is directly on the point and on the interpretation sought to be placed on the word "shall" occurring in the very provision, this view of the Bombay High Court has not been followed by other High Courts including our High Court. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was mainly persuaded by the fact that a Division Bench of the P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document