Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas · F2J-C-2880
N. Venu Gopal Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTSource transparency: The local PDF is an actual court document retained from the complete public source. The official court portal is recorded separately. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
An impossible retrospective payment deadline cannot be enforced. Payment one day after issuance of the revised certificate satisfied the statutory fifteen-day scheme structure.
Scope limits
The holding is confined to the issues actually decided in the retained judgment; no view is attributed to the court on questions expressly left open or remanded.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF origin
- Downloaded unchanged from the complete public court-copy source
- PDF pages
- 8
- Extracted words
- 1,377
- PDF SHA-256
6ae0fa279ca991601f15307175af7fafd77eaccd68995daa399335f07c148623
Complete searchable judgment text
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
1
APHC010620052023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr.No:-
22
PRADESH
[3543]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 32115 of 2023
N. Venu Gopal Reddy, ...Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
DATE : 24th August 2026
Present :
Advocate for Petitioner: VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central
Government Counsel), Y N
VIVEKANANDA
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.32115 OF 2023
ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)
1. The petitioner is a registered person under Income Tax
Act having engaged in the business of Works Contracts. Pursuant to
search operation on the premises of the petitioner, the respondent
authorities took up the assessment against the petitioner and
accordingly raised a demand of Rs.29,60,420/- vide assessment
order dt.28.03.2014 passed under Section 143 (3) r/w. Section 254
of Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner
preferred appeal and in view of introduction of DTVSV scheme
(Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme) by the Government of India,
the appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application
under the said scheme. This scheme provides mechanism for
resolution of pending tax disputes related to Income Tax. In this
scheme, tax payers are provided an opportunity to settle their
disputes by paying the disputed tax amount without any interest or
penalty.
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
3
3. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities
expressing his intention to avail the said scheme and accordingly
filed declaration in Form-I, dt.23.12.2020. After processing the
request of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a certificate in
Form-3 by mentioning the amount payable by the petitioner towards
full and final settlement of the alleged tax earlier under the said
scheme. As per Form-3, the petitioner was directed to pay an
amount of Rs.25,96,438/- on or before 31.03.2021 and an amount
of Rs.28,56,082/- after 31.03.2021.
4. The petitioner noticing certain discrepancies in Form-3,
dt.29.01.2021 in computation, approached the respondent Nos.2 &
3 vide letter dt.12.02.2021 to rectify the error crept therein, so as to
make the necessary payments. Since, the petitioner was directed to
pay the tax on or before 30.09.2021, while pending consideration of
this letter dt.12.02.2021, he made certain payments during the
interregnum. After realizing the mistake in computation, the
respondent authorities issued revised Form-3, dt.29.10.2021
requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.23,36,812/- on or
before 30.09.2021, otherwise an amount of Rs.25,70,493/- after
30.09.2021. In view of issuance of revised Form-3, the petitioner
has paid the balance amount of entire tax (total Rs.23,36,812/-) on
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
4
30.10.2021. After payment was made, the petitioner filed Form-4,
dt.30.10.2021 intimating the same to the respondent authorities.
However, the 4th respondent issued demand notice dt.12.04.2023
asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,23,708/- on the
premise that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.23,36,812/- on
30.10.2021, which is not in consonance with Form-3, dt.29.10.2021,
inasmuch as the petitioner has did not adhere to the time limit
prescribed thereunder. Further, the 2nd respondent also passed
order dt.15.09.2023 under Section 220(2)(A) of the Act charging
interest on the petitioner for the delayed payment. Questioning
these proceedings, the present is filed inter alia challenging the
action of respondent authorities in not closing the issue by
furnishing Form-5 to the petitioner.
5. Heard Sri Avula Aakash, counsel representing Sri
S.Vivek Chandrasekhar and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for Income Tax.
6. Perused the record.
7. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that
having issued revised Form-3 asking the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.23,36,812/-, the respondents authorities ought to have
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
5
issued Form-5 by closing the entire issue under the aforesaid
scheme. He would further contend that revised Form-3 was issued
on 29.10.2021 and a perusal of the same, would show that the
petitioner was directed to pay the amount mentioned therein on or
before 30.09.2021, which is impossible, that the same was either
inadvertently or to deny the benefit conferred under the said
scheme.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the department while not disputing the issuance of revised Form-3,
dt.29.10.2021 would submit that the petitioner failed to comply with
the time prescribed and admittedly made the payment on
30.10.2021 and supports the order under challenge.
9. It is not in dispute that, the 2nd respondent had issued
revised Form-3, dt.29.10.2021 after accepting with the fact that,
there were some mistakes in initial Form-3, dt.29.01.2021. Having
accepted the mistakes crept in while computing the tax, the 2 nd
respondent by no stretch of imagination, could direct the petitioner
to do an act of impossibility, inasmuch as revised Form-3 was
issued on 29.10.2021, through which the petitioner was asked to
make payment of tax mentioned therein on or before 30.09.2021. It
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
6
is humanly impossible to comply with such a condition inasmuch as
the petitioner cannot set the clock back.
10. Further, a perusal of Section 5 (1) & (2) of The Direct
Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, it is clear that the designated
authority shall within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
declaration, by order, determine the amount payable by the
declarant in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and grant
a certificate of declaration containing particulars of the tax arrears
and the amount payable after such determination in the such form
as prescribed. Further, under Section 5(2), the declarant shall pay
the amount determined under sub section (1) within 15 days from
the date of receipt of certificate and intimate the same to the
designated authority in prescribed form and thereafter, the authority
has to pass an order stating that the declarant has paid the amount.
11. In the case on hand, after issuance of revised Form-3,
dt.29.10.2021, the petitioner/declarant paid the amount mentioned
therein on 30.10.2021 and intimated the same to the designated
authority through Form-4, dt.30.10.2021. These facts are not in
dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid the amount within the
time stipulated under Section 5(2) of the said Act, therefore it is
incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to pass order
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
7
stating that the petitioner/declarant has paid the amount, instead the
respondent authorities resorted to coercive action against the
petitioner by issuing demand notice dt.12.04.2023, which is equally
unsustainable under law.
12. In the circumstances, the impugned demand notice
dt.12.04.2023 issued by the 4th respondent and the order
dt.15.09.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside and the
writ petition is allowed. It is further directed that the respondent
authorities shall pass order under Section 5(2) of The Direct Tax
Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and issue Form-5 in favour of the
petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the order.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
________________________
JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
24.08.2026
DR
NJSJ, & TCDS,J
WP_32115_2023
8
27
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.32115 of 2023
Date 24.08.2026
U
DR
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.