JUDGMENT : ARUN MISHRA, J. The petitioners are assailing the certificate issued under section 68(2) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 dated 29-11-1999 issued by Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal reducing the amount of voluntary disclosed amount from Rs. 19,26,133 to Rs. 13,43,717 excluding the amount of Rs. 2,12,000 paid as tax on 30th March, 1998. 2. Petitioners have submitted that petitioner No. 1 Bhaskar Prakashan (Pvt.) Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act having registered Office at Betwa Road, Bhopal. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. The Minister of Finance, Union of India in his budget speech for the year 1997-98 on 28th February, 1997 announced introduction of VDIS. In para 92 of the speech, the Minister of Finance made the following statement:- "92. During the last meeting of the National Development Council, a suggestion was made that the Government should think of a scheme to harness "black money" for production purposes. I have balanced the economic ethical arguments. I have considered various option and I believe that the time is opportune to introduce a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. This would be a simple scheme, where, irrespective of the year or the nature of source of funds, the amount disclosed, either as cash, securities or assets, whether held in India or abroad, would be charged at the revised higher rate of tax. Interest and penalty will be waived. Immunity would be granted from any actions under the Income Tax, Wealth Tax and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts." In the memo explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, the provisions of VDIS were explained. The objection was shown as under :- "In order to mobilize resources and to channalise funds into priority sectors of the economy, and to offer an opportunity to persons who have evaded tax in the past, to declare their undisclosed income, pay reasonable tax and in future adopt the path of rectitude and civic responsibility, a Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Scheme is proposed to be introduced." 3. Petitioners have submitted that under section 64 of the Finance Act a declaration was required to be filed under VDIS on or before 31st day of December, 1997 in respect of the income chargeable to tax on which tax was offered to be paid. Petitioners have submitted that under section 64 of the Finance Act a declaration was required to be filed under VDIS on or before 31st day of December, 1997 in respect of the income chargeable to tax on which tax was offered to be paid. Section 65 of the Finance Act provided for the form and the verification therein and particulars to be furnished. Section 66 provided that tax shall be paid by the declarant and the declaration with proof of payment shall be submitted. Section 67 provides an exception to section 66 and permitted a declarant to file a declaration without payment of tax and pay the tax within three months from the date of filing of the declaration along with simple interest @ 2% for every month or part of a month from the date of filing of the declaration to the date of payment. Section 70 of the Act provided that any amount of tax paid in pursuance of a declaration made under sub-section (1) of section 64 would not be refundable under any circumstances. 4. Petitioners have filed a declaration on 27-12-1997 declaring the income under the Scheme at Rs. 19,26,133/- along with the challan for payment of tax of Rs. 74,147, the balance of tax payable was shown as Rs. 6,00,000. Petitioners paid the balance amount of tax with interest. On 29-1-1998 a sum of Rs. 2,04,000 was paid (including Rs. 4,000 on account of interest), on 26-2-1998 a sum of Rs. 2,08,000 was paid (including Rs. 8,000 on account of interest), and on 30-3-1998 a sum of Rs. 2,12,000 (including Rs. 12,000 on account of interest) was paid. The delay in payment of third, installment was because there was heavy rush in the State Bank of Indore on Friday and Saturday i.e. on 27th and 28th March, 1998 as such the cash amount which was offered in smaller denomination of currency notes was not accepted, the amount was paid on 30th March, 1998 in a different Bank i.e. Central Bank of India. The requisite certificate under the Scheme has not been issued. Certificate (P.I) was issued on 29-11-1999 under section 68(2) showing the amount of the income declared of Rs.13,43,117 and tax payable thereon was Rs. 4,70,301, after adjusting the amount of the tax paid as the declarant has paid the tax and interest, only Rs. 4,86,147 was within the stipulated time. The requisite certificate under the Scheme has not been issued. Certificate (P.I) was issued on 29-11-1999 under section 68(2) showing the amount of the income declared of Rs.13,43,117 and tax payable thereon was Rs. 4,70,301, after adjusting the amount of the tax paid as the declarant has paid the tax and interest, only Rs. 4,86,147 was within the stipulated time. Said certificate was issued. It did not take into account the third amount paid on 30th March, 1998 of Rs. 2,12,000 inclusive of interest. Petitioners have submitted that they have filed an application before CBDT, failing to obtain the redressal of the grievance, this petition has been preferred on the ground that last payment of Rs. 2,12,000 made on 30th March, 1998 under the Scheme could not have been ignored. VDIS is a beneficial provision. The Scheme ought to have been liberally construed. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Smt. Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 238 ITR 97 and decision of High Court of Madras in E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 241 ITR 457 and decision of this Court in Sardar Machhi Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (W.P. No. 4704/1999 decided on 10-12-1999). 5. In the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that amount of tax liability along with interest was not deposited within three months of the declaration as provided under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1997. Reliance has also been placed upon the provision of section 67(2) of the Act providing that in case there is failure to pay the tax within three months from the date of declaration, it shall be deemed that declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under the Scheme. CBDT has issued a circular that in case some payment has been made under the Scheme, the VDIS certificate may be issued on pro rata basis as per Scheme. Thus, pro-rata certificate was issued in the case of petitioners also. Payment of Rs. 2,12,000 was made on 30th March, 1998 beyond stipulated period of three months. Therefore, no credit for such payment could be given to the declarant as per provision of section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. In view of clarification issued by CBDT on 2-2-1999 certificate was issued on pro-rata basis. Payment of Rs. 2,12,000 was made on 30th March, 1998 beyond stipulated period of three months. Therefore, no credit for such payment could be given to the declarant as per provision of section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. In view of clarification issued by CBDT on 2-2-1999 certificate was issued on pro-rata basis. There is no illegality in the action of respondents. Petitioners have not adduced any evidence that amount offered to the banker was not accepted on the ground that it was in the currency notes of smaller denomination. There is no provision in the scheme for exercising discretion in such matter and to condone the delay. On the contrary, section 67(2) provides for penal consequences in case there was any delay in making the payment of the tax within three months of date of declaration submitted. High Court of Punjab and Haryana has reconsidered the matter in Kamal Sood vs. Union of India, 241 ITR 567 and has held that condonation of delay in payment of tax was not within the power of Commissioner of Income Tax. In the case of Kamal Sood vs. Union of India (supra), the decision in Smt. Laxmi Mittal (supra) was not followed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 6. Shri H. S. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava on behalf of petitioner has submitted that object of the Scheme ought to have been taken into consideration while issuing Certificate (P.I). When the Scheme was operative till 31st March, 1998, it would be too technical a view to insist for the discharge of entire tax liability within three months from the date of declaration. In any case, it was beyond the control of the petitioners that the banker did not accept the money on 27th and 28th March, 1998 on the ground that the currency notes were of smaller denomination. He has placed reliance on a decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). He has also prayed that in case it is found by this Court that the amount paid beyond period of three months could not be adjusted within the Scheme, its refund be ordered. 7. He has also prayed that in case it is found by this Court that the amount paid beyond period of three months could not be adjusted within the Scheme, its refund be ordered. 7. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that decision in Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) came up for consideration before their Lordship of the Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 259 ITR I (SC) their Lordships have laid down that provision of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1997 are mandatory. It is not possible to extend the period for depositing the tax, tax has to be deposited within a period of three months from the date declaration was submitted as envisaged under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1997. Learned counsel has also submitted that refund cannot be ordered in view of provision of section 70 of the Finance Act, 1997. 8. Section 64 of the VDIS, 1997 provides for making the disclosure on or before 31st day of December, 1997. A declaration has to be filed in accordance with the provision of section 65 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act for any assessment year. Section 65 deals with the particulars to be furnished in the declaration. Section 66 of the Finance Act deals with the time for payment of tax. The tax payable under the Scheme in respect of the voluntarily disclosed income shall be paid by the declarant and the declaration shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax. However, under section 67 departure is made that a declarant may file a declaration without paying the tax and the declarant may pay the tax within three months from the date of filing of the declaration with simple interest at the rate of 2% for every month or part of a month. Sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act provides consequences for failure to pay the tax in respect of voluntarily disclosed income before expiry of three months from the date of filing of declaration. The penal consequence provided is that declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under the said Scheme. Sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act provides consequences for failure to pay the tax in respect of voluntarily disclosed income before expiry of three months from the date of filing of declaration. The penal consequence provided is that declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under the said Scheme. Section 70 provides that any amount of tax paid in pursuance of a declaration made under sub-section (1) of section 64 shall not be refundable under any circumstances. The decisions relied upon by Shri H. S. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners in Smt. Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 241 ITR 457 and Sardar Machhi Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (supra) cannot hold the field in view of decision of Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (supra) wherein the decision in Smt.Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) rendered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana and decision in E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) rendered by Madras High Court were specifically considered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has laid down that in the said decisions High Court has taken the view that time prescribed under section 61 was not rigid, no legal basis has been relied upon. The decisions to extend the time appears to have been arrived at on consideration of equity. The said approach was incorrect as the Court had no power to act beyond the terms of statutory scheme under which benefit has been granted to the assessee. While considering provision of section 67, the Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya (supra) has laid down thus :- "We are of the view that the submissions of the Revenue must be accepted. A plain reading of the provisions of the Scheme would show that the tax payable under the Scheme "shall be paid" within the time specified is the general rule provided in section 66, namely, payment prior to the making of a declaration. The exception to this general rule has been carved out by section 67(1) which allows a declarant to file a declaration without paying the tax. The exception to this general rule has been carved out by section 67(1) which allows a declarant to file a declaration without paying the tax. This exception, however, is subject to two conditions, viz., (1) the payment of tax within three months from the date of the filing of the declaration together with, (2) the payment of simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month. The period of interest is to commence from the date of filing the declaration and shall end with the date of payment of tax. It may be noted that under section 67(1) not only must these two conditions be fulfilled within the period of three months but proof of such payment must also be filed within the same period. The use of the word "shall" in 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 other 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 the failure to comply with the prescribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, there can be no manner of doubt that such statutory requirement must be interpreted as mandatory (see Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85 , 88) Beside 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. 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. 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." It is apparent from the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court while interpreting section 67(1) of the Act that two conditions are required to be fulfilled within the period of three months, the interest as well as payment of tax has to be made and in case declarant fails to pay the tax within the period of three months as specified under section 67(2), the declaration filed shall be deemed never to have been made under the Scheme, such a requirement has to be interpreted as mandatory as laid down in Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85 . The decision in Smt. Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and E. Prahalatha Babu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) cannot hold the field. Similar is the view taken in Sardar Machhi Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (supra) relying upon Smt. Laxmi Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). As Smt. Laxmi Mittal's case was held to be not a correct law by the Apex Court in Hemalatha Gargya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (supra), we cannot follow the decision taken in Sardar Machhi Singh (supra). 9. Shri H. S. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel has submitted that CBDT has the power to issue a circular in case the period is coming to an end on Sunday or on other holidays on which the Bank is closed. We decline to examine the aforesaid question as in the instant case same is not the fact, situation available. 27th and 28th March, 1998 were not closed days for the Bank. We decline to examine the aforesaid question as in the instant case same is not the fact, situation available. 27th and 28th March, 1998 were not closed days for the Bank. Petitioners have to thank themselves as there was failure on their part to deposit the amount with the Bank within the stipulated period. There is no evidence placed on record indicating that State Bank of Indore did not accept the amount on the ground that currency notes were of smaller denomination, beside that there is no provision to extend the period of limitation to make the deposit envisaged under the Scheme. In view of CBDT circular, the certificate (P.1) has rightly been issued. 10. Coming to the submission made by Shri Shrivastava with respect to the refund of the amount deposited on 30th March, 1998. No doubt about it that Apex Court has ordered refund of amount in Hemalatha Gargya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (supra), but it is under the extra ordinary powers. In view of provision of section 70 containing that refund cannot be claimed under any circumstances, we are afraid that we can order the refund. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find the petition to be meritless, same deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of the petition. Petition dismissed.