TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 Commissioner of Income-tax, 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 dated February 10, 2003 (copy at annexure B), the petitioner is before this court questioning the legality of this communication at annexu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 [2003] 259 ITR 1 (SC); and (3) Banwarilal A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which weighed heavily with the learned judges constituting the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court who rendered decision in Vijay Omprakash Bansal's case [2002] 257 ITR 649 and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the rejection of the special leave as against this decision of the Bombay High Court also, this court should follow the view taken by the Bombay High Court interpreting the very provision of the Scheme. It is now a well settled and clear law that rejection of a special leave petition does not amount to affirmation of a view taken by a High Court nor does it amount to laying down of law by the Supreme Court. The view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Laxmi Mittal's case [1999] 238 ITR 97, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e should be strict compliance with the provisions of the Scheme and there cannot be any relaxation by the courts for the purpose of availing of the benefit of the Scheme in favour of the assessee. The word "shall" also has been noticed and it has been categorically held that it is mandatory in nature and strict compliance is inevitable. The same principle equally applies while understanding and interpreting the word "shall" occurring in section 90(2) of the present scheme. Though Sri Javali, learned counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Banwarilal Agarwalla v. State of Bihar [1961-62] 20 FJR 300; AIR 1961 SC 849, I am at the view that in the light of the decision in Hemalatha Gargya....