Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Om Shivam Buildcon Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its declaration in Form-1 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act). The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 31.01.2020, which was received by the appellate authority on 03.02.2020. The Designated Authority rejected the Form-1 on the ground that the appeal was not pending as on 31.01.2020, relying on CBDT Circular No. 21/2020 dated 04.12.2020, which clarified that the appeal must be filed and pending as on 31.01.2020. The petitioner argued that the statutory definition under Section 2(1)(j) of the DTVSV Act does not require the appeal to be pending on a specific date; it only requires that an appeal is pending. The Court examined the provisions of the DTVSV Act and the circular. It held that the statutory definition is clear and unambiguous, and the CBDT circular cannot override the plain language of the statute. The Court noted that the appeal was filed on 31.01.2020, which is the cut-off date, and the mere fact that it was received on 03.02.2020 does not change the fact that it was filed on 31.01.2020. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Designated Authority to accept Form-1 and process the declaration in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 - Pending Appeal Requirement - Section 2(1)(j) - The petitioner filed an appeal on 31.01.2020 which was received by the appellate authority on 03.02.2020. The Designated Authority rejected Form-1 on the ground that the appeal was not pending as on 31.01.2020, relying on CBDT Circular No. 21/2020 which clarified that the appeal must be filed and pending as on 31.01.2020. The Court held that the statutory definition under Section 2(1)(j) of the DTVSV Act, 2020 does not require the appeal to be pending on a specific date; it only requires that an appeal is pending. The CBDT circular cannot override the plain language of the statute. (Paras 5-9) B) Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - CBDT Circular - Binding Effect - Section 3 - The Court held that CBDT circulars are meant to clarify and implement the provisions of the Act, but they cannot override or restrict the statutory provisions. The circular cannot add a condition that is not present in the Act. The rejection of Form-1 based on the circular was held to be unsustainable. (Paras 8-9) C) Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - Form-1 - Rejection - Writ Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the rejection of Form-1 by the Designated Authority. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the Designated Authority to accept Form-1 and process the declaration in accordance with law. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of Form-1 filed by the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 on the ground that the appeal was not pending as on 31.01.2020 is valid, and whether CBDT Circular No. 21/2020 can override the statutory provisions of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Designated Authority is quashed and set aside. The Designated Authority is directed to accept Form-1 filed by the petitioner and process the declaration in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- CBDT circular cannot override statutory provisions
- Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020
- Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020
- Form-1 declaration
- pending appeal requirement
- date of filing appeal
