Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. The issue involved in this writ appeal is whether the time for payment fixed under Section 93 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 is extendable. The writ appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.08.2009 made in W.P.No.4761 of 2000, where the learned single Judge has directed the authorities to issue necessary certificate under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. 2. The brief facts are as follows: (i) The respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing doors of steel and iron falling under sub-heading No.7308.30 of Central Excise Tariff. The first appellant passed an order dated 29.08.1996 demanding the amount of Rs.4,30,369/-towards duty liability. The respondent firm has paid Rs.3,00,000/-as a pre requisite condition for preferring the appeal against the order demanding the amount of Rs.4,30,369/-towards duty liability. (ii) The Government of India introduced a Scheme named Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 covered by Sections 86 to 98 of Chapter IV of Finance Act, 1998. The object of this Scheme was to reduce litigation and to collect the Government revenue early. (iii) Under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1998 should be made on or before 31.12.1998. The respondent firm filed declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1998 on 29.12.1998 disclosing the tax arrears as Rs.1,30,369/- being the excluding penalty which is waived as per the provisions of Kar Vived Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The first appellant accepted the declaration filed by the respondent and issued a certificate under Form 2B as per Rule 4 (b) of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 dated 17.02.1999 determining the amount payable by the respondent under Section 88F of the Finance Act as Rs.65,185/-. As per Section 93 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the determined tax amount has to be paid within thirty days of the passing of the order by the designated authority. (iv) According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the last date for payment of tax was 18.03.1999. As per Section 93 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the determined tax amount has to be paid within thirty days of the passing of the order by the designated authority. (iv) According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the last date for payment of tax was 18.03.1999. Placing reliance upon the decision in Sardar Machhi Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (245 ITR 58), learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent received the copy of the communication only on 19.02.1999 and 30 days is to be calculated from the date of communication of the order passed by the authority, which according to him was on 21.03.1999. (v) The respondent had paid the amount of Rs.65,185/-on 23.03.1999 beyond the stipulated period of 30 days, out of which, two days were holidays (20.03.1999 and 21.03.1999 being Saturday and Sunday). By the order dated 11.06.1999, the authority has stated that the respondent failed to pay the settlement amount within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Form 2B and therefore, the respondent is ineligible to avail the benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed W.P.No.4761 of 2000. Observing that the Scheme is a beneficial one and benefits should be given to the declarant though the amount was paid some time later, the learned single Judge following the order in W.P.No.14316 of 1999, allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants to issue certificate under the said scheme to the respondent. 3. We have heard Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Placing reliance upon the decision in Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT, A.P., and another leraned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Scheme being a beneficial one and when the assesses seek to claim benefit under the statutory scheme, they are bound to comply strictly with the conditions under which the benefit is granted. It was further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. E. Prahalatha Babu was overruled by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT, A.P., and another Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in Prahalatha Babu’s case shall no longer hold the field. 5. It was further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. E. Prahalatha Babu was overruled by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT, A.P., and another Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in Prahalatha Babu’s case shall no longer hold the field. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that 30 days has to be calculated from the date of receipt of communication of Form 2B certificate, which according to him was on 19.02.1999. Learned counsel would submit that 30 days expired only on 21.03.1999 and amount was paid on 23.03.1999 and the delay of one day has to be condoned, taking into consideration the object of the scheme. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the order of the learned single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sardar Machhi Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (245 ITR 58). 6. In Hemalatha’s case (cited supra), the Supra Court considered the voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. The said scheme was introduced by the Finance Act, 1998 to confer benefit on those who had not disclosed their income earlier. Some of the assesses paid the amount beyond the stipulated period contemplated under Section 67 of the scheme. Observing that where the assessees seek to claim the benefit under the scheme, they are bound to comply strictly with the conditions under which the benefit is granted and there is no scope for application of any equitable consideration, the Supreme Court has held as under: “9. The use of the word “shall” be a Statute, ordinarily speaking, means that the statutory provision is mandatory. It is construed as such unless there is something in the context in which the word is used which would justify a departure from this meaning. There is nothing in the language of the provisions of the Scheme which would justify such a departure. On the other hand the provisions of Section 67(2) make it abundantly clear that if the declarant fails to pay the tax within the period of three months as specified, the declaration filed shall be deemed never to have been made under the Scheme. In the words the consequences of non compliance with the provisions of Section 67(1) relating to the payment have been provided. In the words the consequences of non compliance with the provisions of Section 67(1) relating to the payment have been provided. It is well settled that when consequences of failure to comply with the prescribed requirement is provided by the State itself, there can be no manner of doubt that such statutory requirement must be interpreted as mandatory (see: Maqbool Ahmad and Ors. Vs. Onkar Pratap Narayan Singh AIR 1935 PC, 85, 88) 10. Besides the Scheme has conferred a benefit on those who had not disclosed their income earlier by affording them protection against the possible legal consequences of such non disclosure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Where the assessees seek to claim the benefit under the statutory scheme they are bound to comply strictly with the conditions under which the benefit is granted. There is no scope for the application of any equitable consideration when the statutory provisions of the scheme are stated in such plain language. 11. Seen from the angle of the Designated Authority, which is created under the scheme, it is clear that the authority cannot act beyond the provisions of the scheme itself. The power to accept payment under the scheme has been prescribed by the statute. There is no scope for the revenue authorities to imply a provision not specifically provided for which would in any way modify the explicit terms of the scheme.” 7. In the instant case, 18.03.1999 was a Telugu New Year day. Even though 19.03.1999 was a working day, the respondent has not paid the amount. 20.03.1999 and 21.03.1999 being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays. But on the next working day i.e. on 22.03.1999 (Monday) also, the respondent has not chosen to pay the amount. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hemalatha’s case, in our considered view, the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The discretion to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be a judicial discretion in accordance with well established principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. When the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was the beneficial scheme to confer benefits upon the assessees, the conditions stipulated thereon has to be strictly complied with. As held by the Supreme Court, there is no scope for application of equity. 8. When the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was the beneficial scheme to confer benefits upon the assessees, the conditions stipulated thereon has to be strictly complied with. As held by the Supreme Court, there is no scope for application of equity. 8. In the result, the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.08.2000 made in W.P.No.4761 of 2000 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. 9. After passing the order, it was stated that the respondent has preferred an appeal in E/Appeal No.1490 of 1966. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal in E/1490/1996 to file and decide the same on merits, without being influenced by any of the views expressed in this judgment.