The short question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the rejection of the declaration filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (for short 'the scheme') is legally valid and sustainable?

2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income tax Act. Consequent on a search made at the residence of the petitioner, an order of block assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax for the period from April 1, 1986 to October 15, 1996. The above order of assessment was passed an October 29, 1997. It is the admitted position that the petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order on January 29, 1999 along with a petition to condone to delay in filing the revision petition. A medical certificate was also produced along with the petition for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, he could not file a revision petition within time since he had undergone a surgery for Retinal Detachment.

3. Shortly after filing the revision petition, the petitioner had filed a declaration seeking the benefit of the scheme as provided under section 89 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1998. However, the designated authority, the Commissioner of Income tax took the view that the declaration submitted by the petitioner under the scheme was not maintainable since no valid proceedings "were pending before the revisional authority. A copy of the order dated February 25, 1999 passed by the Commissioner is on record as Ext.P9 shortly thereafter, the Commissioner issued Ext.P10 communication dated March 3, 1999 informing the petitioner that the delay in filing the revision cannot be condoned since the petition for condonation was not properly stamped. It was also stated that since the commissioner of Income tax had statutorily approved the order of assessment, it was not revisable by the same authority- In response to the above communications/orders, the petitioner had given a reply, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P11. But the commissioner by his order dated April 21, 1999 held that the petitioner had not established that he was prevented by sufficient reasons in filing the revision petition. He further took the view that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment which was statutorily approved by him. Thus, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. The primary prayer in this original petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P9, P10 and P12 orders passed by the Commissioner.

4. Kar Vivad Samadhan scheme, 1998 was introduced by finance (No.2) Act 1998. The scheme was in force with effect from September 1, 1998 to January 31, 1999. The scheme envisaged a simplified procedure for liquidation of tax arrears- The assessee had to furnish a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of section 89 in respect of tax arrears" not-withstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provision of any law for the time being in force." It was further provided that the designated authority shall determine the tax payable by the declarant/assessee at the rates specified under the scheme.

5. It is not necessary to refer to the various provisions of the scheme at length in order to deal with the controversy which has cropped up in this case. But a reference to the relevant portion of Section 85 of the scheme is necessary which reads thus:

"95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases. ---- The provisions of this scheme shall not apply -

(i) in respect of tax arrear under any direct tax enactment, ---

(a) ..............

(b) ..............

(c) to a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the high court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of declaration or no application for revision is pending before the commissioner on the date of filing declaration,” (emphasis supplied).

6