# Digvendra Pratap Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 498
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1510 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/digvendra-pratap-singh-v-u-o-i-ors-50683
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Tax Law - The Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Act, 2020 - Sections 2(1), 3, 4 & 5
- If delay in depositing the arrears of tax
in resolution of scheme is caused due to
extraordinary
circumstance,
then
the
court cannot close its eyes and will permit
the declarant to deposit the same - while
condoning the delay caused due to
extraordinary circumstances in depositing
the arrears of tax in the resolution
scheme, the court will not amount to
extending the scheme, but it is a remedial
measure, considering the extraordinary
circumstances of the declarant.(Para -12)

Petitioner filed declaration under Section 3 of
the Act - certificate was issued adjusting his tax
paid - last date for depositing arrears was
extended to 31.10.2021 - On 31.10.2021, he
dropped a cheque, but an accident and knee
injury delayed the payment - Income Tax
Department rejected the amount deposited
under the "Vivad is Vishwas" Scheme - question
remains whether the delay can be condoned -
Apex Court did not consider the issue of
condoning
the
delay
in
extraordinary
circumstances - only observed that benefit of
scheme cannot be extended from the time
prescribed under the scheme. (Para - 10,13)

HELD:- Delay of three days in depositing the
arrears of tax of Rs. 8,67,137/- deserves to be
condoned, and the amount balance tax deposited
by the petitioner be accepted by the respondents
treating the same well within time as per the
scheme of Act, 2020. Order /letter passed by
Central Board of Direct Tax quashed. (Para - 14 )
8 All. Digvendra Pratap Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
499
Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority. However, both the authorities
neglected to consider the reasons for delay
in execution of the sale deed as cited in the
said document.

11. In this wake, the impugned orders
are vitiated due to non application of mind
and it cannot be stated that the sale deed
was not in a good faith. The adequacy as
well as payment of consideration in regard
to the lands comprised in the sale deed are
not disputed. There is no material in the
record for both the authorities to hold that
the sale deed lacked bofa fides or was not
executed in good faith.

12. In light of the preceding
discussion and the findings of fact made
above, the judgement rendered by this
Court in Pramod (supra) and Satnam
Kaur (supra) also cover the facts of this
case.

13. The appellate authority as well as
prescribed authority while passing the
impugned
orders
10.04.2003
and
31.03.1999 fell into errors of facts and law.

14. The impugned order passed by the
appellate authority dated 10.04.2003 as
well as the order passed by the prescribed
authority dated 31.03.1999 are liable to be
set aside and are set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.
Writ Tax No. 1510 of 2022

Digvendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ami Tandon, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sr.
Advocate, Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Anoop Trivedi
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta

(A) Tax Law - The Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Act, 2020 - Sections 2(1), 3, 4 & 5
- If delay in depositing the arrears of tax
in resolution of scheme is caused due to
extraordinary
circumstance,
then
the
court cannot close its eyes and will permit
the declarant to deposit the same - while
condoning the delay caused due to
extraordinary circumstances in depositing
the arrears of tax in the resolution
scheme, the court will not amount to
extending the scheme, but it is a remedial
measure, considering the extraordinary
circumstances of the declarant.(Para -12)

Petitioner filed declaration under Section 3 of
the Act - certificate was issued adjusting his tax
paid - last date for depositing arrears was
extended to 31.10.2021 - On 31.10.2021, he
dropped a cheque, but an accident and knee
injury delayed the payment - Income Tax
Department rejected the amount deposited
under the "Vivad is Vishwas" Scheme - question
remains whether the delay can be condoned -
Apex Court did not consider the issue of
condoning
the
delay
in
extraordinary
circumstances - only observed that benefit of
scheme cannot be extended from the time
prescribed under the scheme. (Para - 10,13)

HELD:- Delay of three days in depositing the
arrears of tax of Rs. 8,67,137/- deserves to be
condoned, and the amount balance tax deposited
by the petitioner be accepted by the respondents
treating the same well within time as per the
scheme of Act, 2020. Order /letter passed by
Central Board of Direct Tax quashed. (Para - 14 )
8 All. Digvendra Pratap Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
499
Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. I.A. Housing Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal
C.I.T. - 4, Writ Petition (C) No. 3560 of 2022

2. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2023)
3 SCC 220

3. M/s Ken Computek Pvt. Ltd. Vs Designated
Committee (SVLDRS) & ors., SLP (C) No. 2116
of 2023

4. M.C.D. Vs Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101,

5. Arnit Das Vs St. of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488

6. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(2000) 5 SCC 501

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ami
Tandon and Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naveen
Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent Department.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 25.8.2022 passed by respondent
No.3 by which the application of the
petitioner for condoning the delay of three
days in depositing the balance amount
payable by him under the Direct Tax Vivad
Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 2020"), has been rejected.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Parliament enacted the
Act 2020 for the resolution of disputed tax.
As per the above Act, 2020, the declarant
should submit his declaration u/s 4 of the Act,
2020 before the designated authority, and
thereafter the designated authority, after
receiving the declaration submitted by the
declarant, will grant a certificate to the
declarant containing particulars of the tax
arrears and the amount payable after such
determination. It is further contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that in
pursuance of the scheme of the above Act
2020, for the resolution of the tax for the
Assessment Year 2010-11, the petitioner
submitted his declaration on 5.6.2020 as
required u/s 4 of the Act, 2020. After
submission of the aforesaid declaration
certificate of designated authority in Form-III
as per Section 5 of the Act, 2020 was also
uploaded on the portal on 9.11.2020, which
was also downloaded by the petitioner on the
same day. As per this certificate, the
petitioner was required to pay Rs. 18,67,137/-
on or before 31.12.2020. Before the expiry of
the last date, the Ministry of Finance issued a
notification dated 27.10.2020, by which the
last date of submission of the balance amount
was extended up to 31.3.2021. Subsequently,
the aforesaid notification dated 27.10.2020
was amended by the Central Government by
issuing another notification extending the last
date of payment of balance tax and lastly, by
notification dated 25.6.2021, the last date for
payment of balance tax was extended till
31.10.2021. On 31.10.2021, it was Sunday.
Therefore, to deposit the balance tax as
mentioned in the certificate issued by the
designated authority u/s 5 of the Act, 2020,
the petitioner dropped a cheque for the
amount of Rs. 8,67,137/- (after adjusting Rs.
10 Lakh which was already deposited by him
prior to issuance of Form - III) in the drop
box of the bank on Sunday itself, but the
receipt for the payment (Challan) was issued
by the bank on 3.11.2021, on encashment of
the above cheque.

4. It was further submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
also met with an unfortunate accident on
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.11.2021 in which serious injuries were
caused in his right knee and he was advised
complete bed rest for a period of three days
i.e. from 1.11.2021 to 3.11.2021 and in
support of his claim, the petitioner has also
annexed the medical certificate issued by
the doctor as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition. However, despite depositing the
money in the account of the Income Tax
Department, he was not permitted to
submit/file Form-IV so as to entirely avail
the benefit of the scheme under the Act
2020 because of the delay of three days in
the generation of challan by the bank.
Feeling aggrieved by the above action of
the Income Tax Department, the petitioner
moved an application before the Chairman
of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on
15.11.2021 with a prayer that appropriate
order be issued for condoning the delay of
three days in depositing the balance amount
towards his tax liability, but the above
application was rejected by the impugned
order dated 25.8.2022 on the ground that
once last date has been mentioned in the
notification to deposit the balance tax
liability; therefore, the same cannot be
extended.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
challenged the impugned order dated
25.8.2022 on the ground that there was a
delay of three days in depositing the
balance amount of tax, firstly for the reason
that the last date for depositing the balance
tax fell on Sunday. Secondly, because of
the injury in his knee he could not approach
the bank from 1.11.2021 to 3.11.2021. In
support of his contention, learned counsel
for the petitioner heavily relied upon the
judgement of Delhi High Court passed in
Writ Petition (C) No. 3560 of 2022 (I.A.
Housing Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-4) decided
on 2.11.2022 in which the present scheme
issued under the Act, 2020 was under
consideration regarding extension of date.
While allowing this petition, the Delhi
High
Court
condoned
the
delay
in
depositing the balance amount of tax and
directed the Income Tax Department to
accept the balance amount as stipulated in
Form-III on the ground that unforeseen and
extraneous
circumstances
which
were
beyond the control of the petitioner and
resulted in delayed depositing the balance
tax can be condoned considering the
lockdown period on account of COVID-19
from 25.3.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further relied upon the judgement of Apex
Court in the case of Shekhar Resorts Ltd.
vs. Union of India and others, reported in
(2023) 3 SCC 220. In the above judgement,
Hon'ble Apex Court, after condoning the
delay, permitted the petitioner to deposit
the balance outstanding on the ground that
the petitioner had already submitted his
declaration but he could not make the
payment
due
to
legal
impediment,
therefore, condoning the said delay in
depositing the balance amount is not the
extension of the scheme, but it is taking a
remedial measure.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Income Tax Department had submitted that
after
getting
the
declaration
of
the
petitioner, certificate u/s 5 of the Act 2020
in Form-III was issued to the petitioner on
9.11.2020, but the petitioner by skipping
the
dates
for
depositing
balance
outstanding, kept on waiting for the
extension of date and even could not
deposit the balance outstanding of tax till
last extended date. In support of his
contention, learned counsel heavily relied
upon the judgement of Apex Court in SLP
(C) No. 2116 of 2023 (M/s Ken Computek
8 All. Digvendra Pratap Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
501
Pvt.
Ltd.
vs.
Designated
Committee
(SVLDRS)
and
others)
decided
on
6.2.2023 in which the Apex Court observed
that the last date to deposit the balance of
tax, prescribed under the scheme under the
Act, 2020, cannot be extended and
confirmed the impugned judgement of the
High Court and dismissed the writ petition
of the petitioner on the ground that last date
prescribed under SVLDR Scheme cannot
be extended.

8. In reply to the averments of learned
Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that judgement
relied upon by learned Standing Counsel
deserves to be ignored being sub silentio as
no finding was recorded in the aforesaid
judgement regarding the issue involved in
the present petition. In support of his
contention,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has relied upon the judgement of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Gurnam Kaur reported in (1989) 1 SCC
101, Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, reported
in (2000) 5 SCC 488 as well as the
judgement of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.
vs. Union of India and others, reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 501. In the above-cited
judgements by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Apex Court observed that
when a particular point is not consistently
determined by the court, that does not form
part of the ratio decidendi and is not
binding.

9. From the pleadings of the parties
and after perusal of the record, it appears
that the Ministry of Finance, Government
of India, has issued the "Vivad se
Vishvash" Scheme in pursuance of the Act
2020. In section 2(l), the last date means
such date as may be notified by the Central
Government in the official gazette. As per
Section 3 of the Act 2020, if the declarant
for resolution, for resolution of disputed
tax, files a declaration to designated
authority in accordance with the provision
of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears as
mentioned in the chart before the last date,
then the designated authority within 15
days from the date of receipt of declaration
will determine the amount payable by the
declarant and grant certificate to the
declarant containing particulars of tax
arrears and the amount payable after such
declaration as per Form-III then the
declarant shall pay the amount determined
within 15 days from the date of receipt of
certificate. Paragraph Nos. 3 and 5 of the
Act 2020 are quoted as below:-

"3. Subject to the provisions of
this Act, where a declarant files under the
provisions of this Act on or before such
date as may be notified, a declaration to
the designated authority in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 in respect of tax
arrear, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Income-tax Act or any
other law for the time being in force, the
amount payable by the declarant under this
Act shall be as under, namely:-

Sl. No. Nature of tax
arrear.
Amount
payable under
this Act on or
before the 31st
day
of
December,
2020 or such
later date as
may be notified
Amount payable
under this Act on
or after the 1st
day of January,
2021
or
such
later date as may
be notified but on
or before the last
date
(a)
where the tax
arrear is the
aggregate
amount
of
disputed tax,
interest
chargeable or
charged
on
such disputed
tax
and
penalty
leviable
or
amount of the
disputed tax.
the aggregate of
the
amount
of
disputed tax and
ten per cent. of
disputed tax:
provided
that
where the ten per
cent. of disputed
tax exceeds the
aggregate amount
of
interest
chargeable
or
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levied
on
such disputed
tax.
charged on such
disputed tax and
penalty
leviable
or levied on such
disputed tax, the
excess shall be
ignored for the
purpose
of
computation
of
amount
payable
under this Act.
(b)
where the tax
arrear
includes
the
tax,
interest
or
penalty
determined in
any
assessment
on the basis
of
search
under section
132
or
section 132A
of
the
Income-tax
Act.
the
aggregate
of the amount
of disputed tax
and twenty-five
per cent. of the
disputed tax:
provided
that
where
the
twenty-five per
cent.
of
disputed
tax
exceeds
the
aggregate
amount
of
interest
chargeable or
charged
on
such
disputed
tax and penalty
leviable
or
levied on such
disputed
tax,
the excess shall
be ignored for
the purpose of
computation of
amount
payable under
this Act.
the aggregate of
the
amount
of
disputed tax and
thirty-five
per
cent. of disputed
tax:
provided
that
where the thirtyfive per cent. of
disputed
tax
exceeds
the
aggregate amount
of
interest
chargeable
or
charged on such
disputed tax and
penalty
leviable
or levied on such
disputed tax, the
excess shall be
ignored for the
purpose
of
computation
of
amount payable.
(c)
where the tax
arrear relates
to
disputed
interest
or
disputed
penalty
or
disputed fee.
twenty-five per
cent.
of
disputed
interest
or
disputed
penalty
or
disputed fee.
thirty per cent. of
disputed interest
or
disputed
penalty
or
disputed fee:

Provided that in a case where an
appeal or writ petition or special leave
petition is filed by the income-tax authority
on any issue before the appellate forum, the
amount payable shall be one-half of the
amount in the Table above calculated on
such issue, in such manner as may be
prescribed:

Provided further that in a case
where an appeal is filed before the
Commissioner (Appeals) or objections is
filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel
by the appellant on any issue on which he
has already got a decision in his favour
from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
(where the decision on such issue is not
reversed by the High Court or the Supreme
Court) or the High Court (where the
decision on such issue is not reversed by
the Supreme Court), the amount payable
shall be one-half of the amount in the Table
above calculated on such issue, in such
manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that in a case
where an appeal is filed by the appellant on
any issue before the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal on which he has already got a
decision in his favour from the High Court
(where the decision on such issue is not
reversed by the Supreme Court), the
amount payable shall be one-half of the
amount in the Table above calculated on
such issue, in such manner as may be
prescribed.

5. (1) The designated authority
shall, within a period of fifteen days from
the date of receipt of the declaration, by
order, determine the amount payable by the
declarant in accordance with the provisions
of this Act and grant a certificate to the
declarant containing particulars of the tax
arrear and the amount payable after such
determination, in such form as may be
prescribed.

(2) The declarant shall pay the
amount determined under sub-section (1)
within fifteen days of the date of receipt of
the certificate and intimate the details of
such payment to the designated authority in
the prescribed form and thereupon the
designated authority shall pass an order
stating that the declarant has paid the
amount.
8 All. Digvendra Pratap Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
503

(3) Every order passed under
sub-section (1), determining the amount
payable under this Act, shall be conclusive
as to the matters stated therein and no
matter covered by such order shall be
reopened in any other proceeding under the
Income-tax Act or under any other law for
the time being in force or under any
agreement, whether for protection of
investment or otherwise, entered into by
India with any other country or territory
outside India.

Explanation.-For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that making a
declaration under this Act shall not amount
to conceding the tax position and it shall
not be lawful for the income-tax authority
or the declarant being a party in appeal or
writ petition or special leave petition to
contend that the declarant or the incometax authority, as the case may be, has
acquiesced in the decision on the disputed
issue by settling the dispute."

10. In the present case, the petitioner
had filed his declaration as required u/s 3 of
the Act 2020 before the designated authority
before the last date, i.e. 5.6.2020 and on
receiving the declaration of the petitioner, the
designated authority had also issued a
certificate as required u/s 5 of the Act, 2020
on 9.11.2020 after adjusting the tax paid by
the petitioner and also informed him the tax
payable by him about Rs. 18,67,137/- before
31.12.2020 and it was also mentioned in the
above certificate that after 31.12.2020 the
petitioner would be liable to pay the arrears
of tax of Rs. 20,84,351/-. It further appeared
from the record that the last date for
depositing the arrears of tax was extended
from time to time and lastly by notification
dated 25.6.2021 till 31.10.2021. But on the
last date i.e. 31.10.2021, it was Sunday;
therefore, as per the petitioner's contention,
he dropped the cheque in the drop box of the
bank of Rs. 8,67,137/-, after adjusting Rs.10
Lakh already deposited by him on 4.2.2019,
which was cleared on 3.11.2021 and duly
deposited in the account of the Income Tax
Department. And the delay of three days
occurred because on 1.11.2021, the petitioner
met with an accident and suffered a knee
injury, and, therefore, he could not approach
the bank to clear the cheque or credit the
amount on 1.11.2021. For this delay of three
days, the Income Tax Department did not
accept the amount deposited by the petitioner
under the "Vivad is Vishwas" Scheme.
Thereafter, the petitioner's application for
condonation of delay of three days was also
rejected by the Chairman of the Central
Board of Direct Tax by order dated
25.8.2022. The fact of dropping of cheque in
the drop box as well as the accident of the
petitioner was not disputed by the respondent
in the counter affidavit. Now the fact
remained is whether the delay of three days
in depositing the arrears of tax can be
condoned, considering the fact of unforeseen
circumstances which were beyond the control
of the petitioner.

11. In the judgement of the Delhi
High Court passed in Writ Petition (C) No.
3560 of 2022, a similar issue was under
consideration. Delhi High Court, after
considering the aforesaid issue, decided the
same by judgement dated 2.11.2022 and
observed that the delay in payment of
arrears of tax is attributable to unforeseen
and extraneous circumstances that were
beyond the control of the petitioner;
therefore, same is deserved to be condoned
and directed the Income Tax Department to
accept the declaration of the petitioner.
Paragraphs No. 12 and 22 of the aforesaid
judgement are being quoted as below:-

"12. This Court is further of the
opinion that the delay in payments of the
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amounts,
in
the
present
cases
are
attributable to unforeseen and extraneous
circumstances that were beyond control of
the Petitioners. In fact, the country was
intermittently in lockdown on account of
the COVID-19 pandemic from 25th March,
2020. In recognition of these difficulties as
pointed out hereinabove, the scheme was
amended several times to extend the
deadline for payment. Moreover, death of
the Managing Director of the companies
was an extraordinary and exceptional event
which would render non-grant of relief on
equitable consideration irrational.

22 This is also a fit case where no
prejudice will be caused to the Respondents
by accepting the prayer of the Petitioners.
Rather,
the
Respondents
benefit
and
achieve the purpose of the Scheme, namely,
to reduce pendency of cases, generate
timely revenue for the government and
provide certainty and savings of resources
that would be spent on the long-drawn
litigation process."

12. Similarly, another judgement
relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
in Shekhar Resorts Ltd. (supra), the Apex
Court in paragraph 25 of the aforesaid
judgement observed that if delay in
depositing the arrears of tax in resolution of
scheme is caused due to extraordinary
circumstance like sickness of the declarant
and there was nobody to look after his
affairs, then the court cannot close its eyes
and will permit the declarant to deposit the
same. The Apex Court also observed that
while condoning the delay caused due to
extraordinary circumstances in depositing
the arrears of tax in the resolution scheme,
the court will not amount to extending the
scheme, but it is a remedial measure,
considering
the
extraordinary
circumstances of the declarant. Paragraphs
No. 23, 24 and 25 are quoted below:-

"23. Applying the law laid down
by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to
the facts of the case on hand, the appellant
cannot
be
punished
for
not
doing
something which was impossible for it to
do. There was a legal impediment in the
way of the appellant to make any payment
during the moratorium. Even if the
appellant wanted to deposit settlement
amount within the stipulated period, it
could not do so in view of the bar under the
IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment
could have been made. In that view of the
matter, the appellant cannot be rendered
remediless and should not be made to
suffer due to a legal impediment which was
the reason for it and/or not doing the act
within the prescribed time.

24.
Now
so
far
as
the
observations made by the High Court to the
effect that the High Court cannot, in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India extend the period
under the scheme, 2019, to some extent the
High Court is right. The High Court while
exercising the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot extend the
scheme. However, in the present case it is
not a case of extension of the scheme by the
High Court; It is a case of taking remedial
measures. It is not a case where the
appellant did not make any application
within the stipulated time under the
scheme. This is not a case where the Form
No.3 determining the settlement amount
was not issued during the validity of the
scheme. It is not a case where the appellant
deliberately did not deposit the settlement
amount and/or there was any negligence on
the part of the appellant in not depositing
the settlement amount within the stipulated
time. As observed hereinabove it is a case
where the appellant was unable to make the
payment due to the legal impediment and
the bar to make the payment during the
8 All. Vinay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
505
period of moratorium in view of the
provisions of the IBC.

25. In a given case it may happen
that a person who has applied under the
Scheme and who was supposed to make
payment on or before 30.06.2020, became
seriously ill on 29.06.2020 and there was
nobody to look after his affairs and
therefore he could not deposit the amount;
such inability was beyond his control and
thereafter, immediately on getting out of
sickness he tried to deposit the amount
and/or approached the Court - can the
Court close its eyes and say that though
there may be valid reasons and/or causes
for that person's inability to make the
payment, still no relief can be granted to
him? There may be extra ordinary cases
which are required to be considered on
facts of each case. The Courts are meant to
do justice and cannot compel a person to
do something which was impossible for him
to do. "

13. While in the judgement of M/s
Ken Computek Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated
Committee (SVLDRS) and others, passed
in SLP (C) No. 2116 of 2023, the Apex
Court did not consider the issue of
condoning the delay in extraordinary
circumstances but only observed that
benefit of scheme cannot be extended from
the time prescribed under the scheme.

14. In view of the law mentioned
above, as well as considering the pleadings
and perusal of record, this Court is of the
view that a delay of three days in
depositing the arrears of tax of Rs.
8,67,137/- deserves to be condoned, and the
amount balance tax deposited by the
petitioner be accepted by the respondents
treating the same well within time as per
the scheme of Act, 2020 and also the
impugned order /letter dated 25.8.2022,
passed by Central Board of Direct Tax, is
hereby quashed.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6174 of 2023
With other connected cases

Vinay Parmar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sri Dilip Kumar
Goswami, Sri N.I. Jafri (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 154- of Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 2/3(1)-
Quashing of first information report-
violation of Rule 16(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as the
District Magistrate has granted approval
to the gang chart mindlessly without
proper perusal of the facts and Such
violation
vitiates
the
impugned
first
information report-Held, the allegation in
the base case is of transportation of the
minerals and the same is necessarily for
pecuniary advantage-The petitioners are
therefore, fully covered by the definition
of the word chart in Section 2(b) of the
Act-The
First
Information
Report