( 1 ) THE grievance which the petitioner company has ventilated in the present petition is with regard to not granting of a certificate under the provisions of Sec. 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1997 in respect of particulars of the voluntarily disclosed income and the amount of income tax paid in respect thereof by the petitioner-assessee.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under:-

( 3 ) THE petitioner had made a declaration on 30. 12. 97 to the effect that it was having an undisclosed income which it wanted to disclose under a scheme known as Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme of 1997 (VDIS ). As per the provisions of sec. 67 of the Finance Act, 1997, the petitioner had to make payment of tax payable on the amount of income disclosed within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the declaration. The case of the petitioner is that though the tax payable under the said scheme was paid on 30. 3. 98 and the petitioner company was entitled to a certificate under the provisions of sec. 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1997 from the respondent, the petitioner company was not granted the certificate.

( 4 ) IN the above-referred circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this court with a prayer that the respondent be directed to grant a certificate under the provisions of sec. 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1997.

( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the petitoiner has submitted that the respondent has not issued the certificate on the ground that the tax was paid on the 91st day of the filing of the declaration. It has been submitted by him that the declaration was filed on 30. 12. 97 and the tax was paid on 30. 3. 98. It has been submitted by the learned advocate that the tax has been duly paid within a period of 3 months as provided under sec. 67 (1) of the Act and therefore the reason given by the respondent that the amount was paid on 91st day is absolutely irrelevant.

( 6 ) THE learned advocate has relied upon Circular No. 755 issued by the CBDT dated 25. 7. 97 (published in 226 ITR (Statutes) at page 33) wherein at answer to question No. 48, the aspect with regard to the period within which the tax is to be paid has been explained. Question No. 48 and its answer referred to in the said circular are reproduced hereinbelow. "question No. 48: If disclosure is made on December 31, 1997, would the declaration be held to be valid if total tax payment is made by March 31, 1998? Answer: Yes. "

( 7 ) THE learned advocate has submitted that if we compare the illustration given hereinabove by the CBDT in the circular referred to hereinabove with the case of the petitioner, it is very clear that the petitioner ought to have been issued a certificate under the provisions of sec. 68 (2) of the Act.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent department has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to certificate under the provisions of sec. 68 (2) of the Act for the reason that the petitioner had not deposited the amount of tax within 90 days but the tax was paid on the 91st day as stated in para 2 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. He has also relied upon a circular issued by the CBDT dated 3. 9. 98 and more particularly clauses II and IV of the said circular and has submitted that the petitioner ought to have deposited the amount of tax within 90 days and the cheque deposited by the petitioner ought to have been encashed within 90 days from the date of filing of the declaration. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that the cheque was encashed on 3. 4. 98 and therefore the payment was not made as per the provisions of the said circular within 90 days from 30. 12. 97, that is the day on which the declaration was filed by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was rightly not given a certificate under sec. 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1997.

( 9 ) WE have heard the learned advocates and h