JUDGMENT V. K. Singhal, J.—By this writ petition, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated January 19, 1999, passed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, has been challenged. The prayer made for revision of calculation to the Commissioner of Income Tax was rejected on January 19, 1999. The petitioner moved the Central Board of Direct Taxes on January 1, 1999, stating that the amount along with the returns should be appropriated towards tax but not towards interest. In pursuance of the representation the petitioner was informed that the Scheme of 1998 is different from Section 140A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech, while explaining the objectives of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, observed (see [1998] 231 ITR 67) : "I, therefore, propose to introduce a new scheme called the "SAMADHAN". The scheme would apply to both direct or indirect taxes and offer waiver of interest, penalty, and immunity from prosecution on payment of arrears of direct taxes at the current rates." 3. It is submitted that, due regard has to be given to the Budget Speech, as was observed by the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Birla Education Trust, (1985) 153 ITR 579 Cal, relying upon the decision of the apex court in K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another, AIR 1981 SC 1922 , wherein it was observed (page 583) : "Now, it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation was enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India, that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible." 4. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India, that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible." 4. It is also submitted that, the Scheme of 1998 is a special provision and reliance is placed on the judgment given, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd., (1989) 176 ITR 473 Cal, wherein the Calcutta High Court observed that, when there is a general enactment as well as a special enactment in respect of the same head in a statute, the particular or special enactment would override the general enactment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar Vs. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1490 , wherein, it was observed that, when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessional rates of tax for the purpose of encouraging an industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the statute. It is also stated that the interpretation has to be taken in favour of the assessee, if there is any ambiguity. It is stated that, in the clarifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated September 3, 1998, a question was raised to the effect that : "Where the tax arrear comprises tax and interest, how will the part payment be first appropriated--towards tax or interest ?" 5. The answer to the question was given that part payments are appropriated first towards tax and then towards interest. It is also submitted that, power has been given under Section 96 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, to the Central Government to issue instructions which are binding on the respondents and since a clarification has already been given by the Government, the Commissioner should have accepted it, in view of the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Scheme, 1998. 6. I have considered over the matter. 7. The assessment in this case was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on March 21, 1997, for the assessment year 1994-95. The asses-see has paid the tax between April and January 1997, to the extent of Rs. 4,90,000, A sum of Rs. 6. I have considered over the matter. 7. The assessment in this case was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on March 21, 1997, for the assessment year 1994-95. The asses-see has paid the tax between April and January 1997, to the extent of Rs. 4,90,000, A sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was paid under Section 140A of the Act on July 18, 1995, and after adjusting these two amounts, out of the total liability of tax and interest of Rs. 38,47,856, a demand was created for Rs. 35,47,156. Under the Explanation to Section 140A(1), if the amount paid falls short of the aggregate of the tax and interest, the amount so paid shall be first adjusted towards the interest payable and the balance is to be adjusted towards tax. 8. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, the payment, therefore, has to be adjusted towards liability of interest. The provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, provide that, notwithstanding anything contained in any direct tax enactment or indirect tax enactment or any other provision of any law for the time being in force, the amount payable under this scheme by the declarant shall be determined at the rates specified hereunder ; "(a) Where the tax arrear is payable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) ; (i) in the case of a declarant, being a company or a firm, at the rate of thirty five per cent. of the disputed income ; (ii) in the case of a declarant, being a person other than a company or a firm, at the rate of thirty per cent. of the disputed income ; (iii) in the case where tax arrear includes Income Tax, interest payable or penalty levied, at the rate of thirty-five per cent. of the disputed income for the persons referred to in clause (i) or thirty per cent. of the disputed income for the persons referred to in clause (ii) ; (iv) in the case where tax arrear comprises only interest payable or penalty levied, at the rate of fifty per cent. of the disputed income for the persons referred to in clause (i) or thirty per cent. of the disputed income for the persons referred to in clause (ii) ; (iv) in the case where tax arrear comprises only interest payable or penalty levied, at the rate of fifty per cent. of the tax arrear ; (v) where the tax arrear includes the tax, interest or penalty determined in any assessment on the basis of search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 or Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961),- (A) in the case of a declarant, being a company or a firm, at the rate of forty-five per cent, of the disputed income ; (B) in the case of a declarant, being a person other than a company or a firm, at the rate of forty per cent. of the disputed income ;" 9. Whenever a non obstante clause is used in any provision by using the word "notwithstanding" then it can only mean that the provisions of the later would supersede the earlier. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is considered in this respect, it would be evident that the amount payable under the scheme will hold the field than what is payable under the Income Tax law. This supersession has been made under Section 88 to the amount payable under the Scheme. A definite percentage and calculations have been given on the basis of which the amount has to be calculated under the Scheme, 1998, irrespective of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Nowhere under the Scheme, 1998, is it stated that the assessment which have already been made and where the amount paid under Section 140A has been adjusted, then readjustment has to be done. The provisions of Section 140A by its Explanation would have no force, had there been any specific provision under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Since the KVS Scheme does not contemplate adjustment of the amount paid under Section 140A towards tax, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Question No. 4 of the clarification dated September 3, 1998, also does not help the petitioner's ease, because, it refers to the payments which are made after the tax arrears are computed and thereafter any part payment is made. Question No. 4 of the clarification dated September 3, 1998, also does not help the petitioner's ease, because, it refers to the payments which are made after the tax arrears are computed and thereafter any part payment is made. The clarification given by the Government dated January 18, 1999, has only used the words "the Scheme is different from Section 140A." This also does not help the petitioner, for, it is nowhere stated in this clarification that the amount paid under Section 140A has to be adjusted towards tax. he amount has been paid admittedly under Section 140A and the Explanation to Section 140A is clear in requiring adjustment of the payment first towards interest liability. Even in the Budget Speech, the contention raised by the petitioner has not been elaborated, explained or stated. It is pointed out that, if the payment made under Section 140A is adjusted towards interest, then such adjustment would be disadvantageous in comparison to the assessee who has not paid the tax at all. There may be anomalies or the Scheme may be more beneficial to the greater defaulter than to the honest taxpayer or the taxpayer who has complied with the provisions but the Scheme has to be read as it is. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case for interference is made out. The contention that the payment under Section 140A should be treated towards the tax liability has no force. 10. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.