JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhinal Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for learned advocate Mrs.Kalpana Raval for the respondent. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Dhinal Shah for the petitioner has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow the present Petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent to issue Form 5 to the Respondent in accordance with Rule 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue directions upon the Respondent to refund the amount of INR 2, 00, 634/- (INR Two Lakh Six Hundred Thirty Four Only) as the Petitioner had met with the major payment requirements prior to 30/09/2021; D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.” 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dhinal Shah, under instructions, does not pray for prayer (C) in view of Section 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishvash Act, 2020. 5. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 6. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 7. Brief facts giving rise to this petition can be summarised as under : 7.1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 1st September, 2012 declaring total income at Rs.4,48,710/-.The return of income filed by the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 7.2. The case of the petitioner was reopened under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 dated 27th March, 2019 was issued. 7.2. The case of the petitioner was reopened under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 dated 27th March, 2019 was issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 03.12.2019 and by making an addition of Rs.65,00,000/- in the total income of the petitioner. 7.3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferrd an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals). 7.4. During the pendency of the Appeal, Direct Tax Vivad se Vishvas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) was came into effect from 17th March, 2020 with an objective to provide resolution of disputed tax and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 7.5. The petitioner to get the benefit of the waiver of interest and penalty, as per the provisions of the DTVSV Act preferred an Application in Form 1 on 10th August, 2020 through online portal. The petitioner also withdrew the Appeal pending before the CIT (Appeals) as a pre-condition to file the Form 1 under the DTVSV Act. 7.6. According to the petitioner, the amount payable under the provisions of the DTVSV Act was calculated at Rs.12,41,653/-. 7.7. The respondent issued Form No.3 being Certificate under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the DTVSV Act directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.12,41,653/- on 14.12.2020. The petitioner was accordingly suppose to pay the amount of Rs.12,41,653/- on or before 31st March, 2021 and Rs.14,43,818/- after 31st March, 2021. 7.8. The petitioner by letter dated 3rd March, 2021 preferred an Application under Section 154 of the Act claiming the credit of Rs.14,470/- being the self-assessment tax paid as on 31.08.2012 from the total outstanding demand and requested the Assessing Officer to consider the prepaid tax under the Vivad se Vishvash Scheme as Rs.1,39,965/- instead of Rs.1,25,495/-. 7.9. It appears that the petitioner thereafter unilaterally reducing the amount payable as per Form 3 by Rs.14,470/-, paid Rs.12,27,183/- (Rs.12,41,653-Rs.14,470) on 27th August, 2021. It appears that the respondent considering the Application made by the petitioner issued another Form No.3 on 16th September, 2021 asking the petitioner to pay Rs.12,28,500 on or before 30th September, 2021 and Rs.14,29,350/- after the said date. 7.10. However, the petitioner paid the difference of Rs.1,533/-(Rs.12,28,500- Rs.12,27,183/-) on 12th October, 2021 instead of 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 dated 16th September, 2021. 7.11. 7.10. However, the petitioner paid the difference of Rs.1,533/-(Rs.12,28,500- Rs.12,27,183/-) on 12th October, 2021 instead of 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 dated 16th September, 2021. 7.11. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 21st July, 2022 requested the respondent to issue Form No.5 by considering the late payment of short amount of Rs.1,533/- on 12.10.2021 within the prescribed period for payment that is up to 30th September, 2021. 7.12. The respondent by letter dated 16.08.2022 directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs.14,29,350/- as per Form 3 on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs.12,28,500/- on or before 30th September, 2021 as only amount of Rs.12,27,183/- was deposited on or before 30th September, 2021. 7.13. The petitioner by letter dated 25th August, 2022 again requested to consider the late payment of Rs.1,533/- as part of the total payment as required under Form 3 contending that there was no intention for making late payment or short payment of any tax amount as out of the difference of amount of Rs.1,533/- comprises short amount of Rs.1,317/- towards the difference in tax and remaining of Rs.216/- towards interest on the said amount. 7.14. It appears that the petitioner thereafter deposited Rs.2,00,634/- on 09.12.2022 as per the direction issued by the respondent vide letter dated 16.08.2022 so as to avail the benefit of the Scheme and by letter dated 13.12.2022 requested the respondent to issue Form No.5 and delete the old demand for assessment and penalty for the year under consideration. 7.15. The petitioner again by letter dated 06.02.2023 requested the respondent to issue Form No.5, however, by the impugned order dated 16.03.2023, the respondent refused to issue Form No.5 on the ground that the amount paid by the petitioner was beyond the last day of the Scheme i.e. 30th September, 2021 as the petitioner paid the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,634/- on 09.12.2022 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the DTVSV Scheme. 7.16. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 8.1. 7.16. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 8.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dhinal Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of the DTVSV Act for waiver of the interest and penalty and paid more than 90% of the amount of Rs.12,27,183/- on 27th August, 2021 and only a short payment of Rs.1,533/- was paid on 12th October, 2021 and because of that the respondent was not justified in refusing to grant the benefit under the Scheme. 8.2. It was further submitted that the petitioner as an abundant caution also paid the amount of Rs.2,00,634 on 9th December, 2022 to show the bona-fide that the petitioner is ready to abide by the direction issued in Form-3 dated 16.09.2021. It was further submitted that the petitioner is not claiming any refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,634/- but considering the facts of the case, the respondents out to have granted the benefit of the Scheme. 8.3. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Kartik Pravinchandra Mehta versus Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 2023 149 taxmann.com 482 (Bombay) wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in similar facts when the assessee in the said case made short payment of Rs.300/- before the specified date held that it was an inadvertent error on part of the assessee which was neither deliberate or intentional when the Principal Commissioner was directed to accept the balance payment of Rs.300/- with interest and issue Form No.5 in terms of the Scheme; (ii) In case of I A Housing Solution Private Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 198 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the delay in payment of tax dues was attributable to an unforeseen and extraneous circumstances that were beyond the control of the assessee in the facts of the said case and such delay was unintentional and supported by justifiable reason and therefore the same was condoned. (iii) Sky Industries Limited versus State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.246 of 2023 dated 07.06.2023 wherein, this Court considering the facts of the case before it held that merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid Rs.2,000/- less towards the principal outstanding amount of tax, it cannot be denied the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. (iii) Sky Industries Limited versus State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.246 of 2023 dated 07.06.2023 wherein, this Court considering the facts of the case before it held that merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid Rs.2,000/- less towards the principal outstanding amount of tax, it cannot be denied the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. (iv) Neelam Ajit Phatarperkar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle –1(1) and Others of the Bombay High Court reported in (2024) 366 CTR (Bombay) 749 wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the facts of the said case permitted the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner for late payment of the deficit payment by eleven days on account of the technical glitch. (v) Chandrakala Kasani versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 464 ITR 119 (Telangana) wherein, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court considering the Covid-19 pandemic period and circumstances faced by the assesse as well as considering the fact that the assessee did not try to evade the payment of tax at any point of time permitted the benefit of the Scheme by directing the respondent to issue the Form-5. 8.4. Referring to the above decisions, it was submitted that the respondent be directed to issue Form No.5 and delete any outstanding demand and penalty against the petitioner. 9.1. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that by permitting the petitioner to pay the amount beyond the specified date would result into extension of the statutory Scheme under the DTVSV Act which is not permissible. 9.2. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yashi Constructions versus Union of India reported in [2022] 136 taxmann.com 248 (SC). It was further submitted that admittedly, in the facts of the case the petitioner has made short payment of Rs.1,533/- on 12th October, 2021 which is beyond specified date of 30th September, 2021 and further payment of Rs.2,00,634/- by the petitioner on 09.12.2022 would not make any difference and the respondent was justified in denying the benefit of the Scheme by treating such payment made by the petitioner as null and void under the Scheme. 10. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case as well as the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that it is not in dispute to the effect that the petitioner paid Rs.12,27,183/- on 27th August, 2021 out of Rs.12,28,500/- which the petitioner was required to pay on or before 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 issued by the respondent on 16th September, 2021. 11. Thus, the petitioner paid Rs.1,533/- short before 30th September, 2021 which was paid by the petitioner on 12th October, 2021 and there was a delay of twelve days in making such short payment of Rs.1,533/-. The provisions of the Scheme under DTVSV Act are beneficial provisions so as to reduce the litigation and the petitioner therefore cannot be subjected to the harsh approach of denying the benefit of waiver of interest and penalty under the Scheme by considering the short payment of Rs.1,533/- by delay of twelve days as fatal to consider the entire payment made by the petitioner of Rs.12,27,183/- as null and void under the Scheme. The object of the Scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of pending tax litigation and recovery of the outstanding dues of the Government resulting into reduction of administrative cost. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Kartik Pravinchandra Mehta (Supra) in similar facts has held as under : “6. The Direct Tax, Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto as is clear from the preamble of the said Act. The purpose and spirit of such an enactment can be noticed from the Bill that was introduced in the parliament, the statements and objects and reasons whereof read as under: 24. Let us now read the statement of objects and reasons of the Vivad se Vishwas Bill when introduced in the Parliament which later on became the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The statement of objects and reasons reads as under: "Over the years, the pendency of appeals filed by taxpayers as well as Government has increased due to the fact that the number of appeals that are filed is much higher than the number of appeals that are disposed. The statement of objects and reasons reads as under: "Over the years, the pendency of appeals filed by taxpayers as well as Government has increased due to the fact that the number of appeals that are filed is much higher than the number of appeals that are disposed. As a result, a huge amount of disputed tax arrears is locked-up in these appeals. As on the 30th November, 2019, the amount of disputed direct tax arrears is Rs. 9.32 lakh crores. Considering that the actual direct tax collection in the financial year 2018-19 was Rs. 11.37 lakh crores, the disputed tax arrears constitute nearly one year direct tax collection. 2. Tax disputes consume copious amount of time, energy and resources both on the part of the Government as well as taxpayers. Moreover, they also deprive the Government of the timely collection of revenue. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide for resolution of pending tax disputes. This will not only benefit the Government by generating timely revenue but also the taxpayers who will be able to deploy the time, energy and resources saved by opting for such dispute resolution towards their business activities. 3. It is, therefore, proposed to introduce the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Bill, 2020 for dispute resolution related to direct taxes, which, inter alia, provides for the following, namely:-- (a) the provisions of the Bill shall be applicable to appeals filed by taxpayers or the Goverment, which are pending with the Commissioner (Appeals), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court as on the 31st day of January, 2020 irrespective of whether demand in such cases is pending or has been paid; (b) the pending appeal may be against disputed tax, interest or penalty in relation to an assessment or reassessment order or against disputed interest, disputed fees where there is no disputed tax. Further, the appeal may also be against the tax determined on defaults in respect of tax deducted at source or tax collected at source; (c) in appeals related to disputed tax, the declarant shall only pay the whole of the disputed tax if the payment is made before the 31st day of March, 2020 and for the payments made after the 31st day of March, 2020 but on or before the date notified by Central Government, the amount payable shall be increased by 10 per cent of disputed tax; (d) in appeals related to disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, the amount payable by the declarant shall be 25 per cent of the disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, as the case may be, if the payment is made on or before the 31st day of March, 2020. If payment is made after the 31st day of March, 2020 but on or before the date notified by Central Government, the amount payable shall be increased to 30 per cent of the disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, as the case may be. 4. The proposed Bill shall come into force on the date it receives the assent of the President and declaration may be made thereafter up to the date to be notified by the Government." It is thus clear that the spirit of the enactment was to unlock the amounts held up in disputes on account of pendency of various appeals filed by not only the tax payers but also the Government. The amount of disputed tax arrears as reflected in the Bill was an enormous amount of Rs. 9.32 lakh crores, which reflected approximately one year's direct tax collection. 7. In the present case it can be seen that the Petitioner being eligible did apply for settlement of these disputes in terms of the Act. The Petitioner's eligibility therefore is not in dispute. It is true that the Petitioner did not deposit the entire amount which was determined as payable by Respondent No. 1 and which ought to have been paid before the specified date. The specified date earlier fixed as per the Act was 31st March, 2020. The Petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 8,39,676- before the said date, however in case the payment was made after 01st April, 2020, the amount payable was Rs. 967194/-.” 12. The specified date earlier fixed as per the Act was 31st March, 2020. The Petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 8,39,676- before the said date, however in case the payment was made after 01st April, 2020, the amount payable was Rs. 967194/-.” 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of I A Housing Solution Private Limited (Supra) also in the facts of the said case has held as under : “12. This Court is further of the opinion that the delay in payments of the amounts, in the present cases are attributable to unforeseen and extraneous circumstances that were beyond control of the Petitioners. In fact, the country was intermittently in lockdown on account of the COVID-19 pandemic from 25th March, 2020. In recognition of these difficulties as pointed out hereinabove, the Scheme was amended several times to extend the deadline for payment. Moreover, death of the Managing Director of the companies was an extraordinary and exceptional event which would render non-grant of relief on equitable consideration irrational. RELIANCE BY THE RESPONDENTS ON HEMALATHA GARGYA (SUPRA) IS MISCONCEIVED ON FACTS AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. VSV ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHOSE PROVISIONS MUST BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. 13. Further, the reliance by the Respondents on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya (supra) is misconceived on facts and untenable in law as in the said case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (for short 'VDI Scheme') which permitted declarant-assessee: a. to disclose income chargeable to tax for which no return of income had been filed by the assessee; b. to disclose the income chargeable to tax where the return of income had been filed by the assessee but, that income had not been disclosed in the return; c. to disclose the income chargeable to tax where the return of income had been filed without disclosing the full and true material facts necessary for the assessment of that income. 14. Consequently, the VDI Scheme provided a one-time opportunity to the assessees to declare the undisclosed income which was concealed by the assessees and at the same time, provided them with immunity from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Act for not voluntarily disclosing the income chargeable to tax. 14. Consequently, the VDI Scheme provided a one-time opportunity to the assessees to declare the undisclosed income which was concealed by the assessees and at the same time, provided them with immunity from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Act for not voluntarily disclosing the income chargeable to tax. Hence, the VDI Scheme was in the nature of an amnesty scheme which provided a window to the assessees to come clean without any adverse consequences under the provisions of the Act. It was in this context that the Apex Court observed that "....Where the assessees seek to NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER : 2022/DHC/004603 claim the benefit under the statutory scheme they are bound to comply with the conditions under which the benefit is granted there is no application of any equitable consideration when the provisions of scheme are stated in such plain language". 15. In fact, while interpreting a similar scheme "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme", the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Versus Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja, 2005 (9) TMI 362 SC held that the object of the said Scheme was to settle tax arrears locked in litigation at a substantial discount and it provided that any tax arrears could be settled by paying the prescribed amount of tax arrears, and it offered benefits and immunities from penalty and prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme" was in substance a recovery scheme though it was nomenclatured as a "litigation settlement scheme" and was not similar to the earlier VDI Scheme. It further held that the object of "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme" was to put an end to all pending matters in the form of appeals, reference, revisions and writ petitions under the IT Act/WT Act and the object was to put an end to litigation in various forms and at various stages under the IT Act/Wealth Tax Act and therefore the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions under the IT Act or VDI Scheme will not apply. 16. As opposed to the VDI Scheme, the VSV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted by Parliament with the avowed object to provide for resolution of disputes whereby the assessee is permitted to settle the dispute pending before any appellate authority, resulting in reduction in litigation and generation of timely revenue for the government. 16. As opposed to the VDI Scheme, the VSV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted by Parliament with the avowed object to provide for resolution of disputes whereby the assessee is permitted to settle the dispute pending before any appellate authority, resulting in reduction in litigation and generation of timely revenue for the government. Consequently, being a beneficial/remedial statute, the provisions of VSV Act must be interpreted in a manner which advances the purpose for which it is enacted as a strict interpretation of the VSV Act will defeat the very purpose for which it was introduced by the legislature. 17. Moreover, the principle of a judgment rendered in a normal circumstance cannot be applied to abnormal and extraordinary circumstances such as Covid wherein the organisation of the Petitioners were affected due to death of a Director and that too when the Petitioners in no manner derived any benefit because of delay. THOUGH RESPONDENTS HAVE NO POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PAYMENT, YET THIS COURT IN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION CAN PASS ANY ORDER NECESSARY TO REMEDY INJUSTICE. 18. Though this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the Departmental Authorities, yet this Court under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice. The Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held "It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice". 19. One of us (Manmohan, J) in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 4797, para 41 has held, "it is settled law that this Court has extremely broad jurisdiction under NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2022/DHC/004603 Article 226 of the Constitution and under the said Article it can pass whatever orders are necessary for doing equity and justice. The Supreme Court in N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744 has held that "unlike a inferior court, in respect of a High Court, which is also a Court of Record, it is assumed that every action is within its jurisdiction, unless expressly shown otherwise". 20. Consequently, the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances cannot be taken away or curtailed by any legislation. 21. In fact, the Supreme Court in Dal Chandra Rastogi v. CBDT (2019) 104 taxmann.com 341 (SC) wherein the assessee had filed a declaration of undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and had failed to pay the third installment of the remaining 50 per cent of tax, surcharge and penalty permitted the assessee to make late deposit of tax under Income Declaration Scheme subject to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is pertinent to mention that there was no provision for late deposit of tax in the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Yet the Supreme Court taking note of the genuine hardship faced by the assessee and short delay in payment, ruled in favour of the taxpayer. NO PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY ACCEPTING THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS. RATHER, SUCH ACTION SHALL HELP ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE VSV ACT. 22. This is also a fit case where no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents by accepting the prayer of the Petitioners. Rather, the Respondents benefit and achieve the purpose of the Scheme, namely, to reduce pendency of cases, generate timely revenue for the government and provide certainty and savings of resources that would be spent on the long-drawn litigation process.” 13. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sky Industries Limited (Supra) was under the Amnesty Scheme under the provisions of the VAT Act but adopting the same reasoning as given even by this Court for short payment of Rs.2,000/- in the facts of the said case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner shold be granted the benefit of the Scheme under the DTVSV Act which is provided for resolution of the disputed tax as a measure to reduce the pending litigation and recovery of the outstanding dues of the Government. 14. 14. The contention of the respondent that granting benefit of the Scheme would amount to extension of the specified date for the payment and would amount to modifying the Scheme would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the petitioner has already paid of the substantial amount of Rs.12,27,183/- out of Rs.12,28,500/- before the specified date on 27th August, 2021 prior to the 30th September, 2021 coupled with the fact that the petitioner also paid the amount of Rs.2,00,634/- which was the difference between the amount of Rs.14,29,350/- and Rs.12,28,500/- to be payable after 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 dated 16th September, 2021 issued by the respondent. 15. In such circumstances, it would be germane to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yashi Construction (Supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “2. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the the prerogative of the Government.” 16. In the facts of the said case, the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme i.e. during thirty days whereas, in the facts of the case, the petitioner has paid the almost entire amount except Rs.1,533/- within the specified time period on or before 30th September, 2021 and therefore, it cannot be said that permitting the petitioner to the benefit of the Scheme would amount to extending the Scheme or modifying the Scheme which is the prerogative of the Government. 17. 17. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is not permitted to pay the entire amount as per Form 3 beyound the specified date but only amount of Rs.1,533/- which the petitioner paid late by twelve days is considered, is unintentional and the same was supported by the justifiable reason and therefore, in order to do the substantial justice to the petitioner, the delay of twelve days in payment of Rs.1,533/- ought to have been condoned by the respondent No.5 by issuing the Form 5. In the facts of the case, the petitioner has also paid Rs.2,00,634/- being the difference of the amount payable after 30th September, 2021. 18. Considering the above facts of the case, the impugned order rejecting the issuance of Form 5 passed by the respondent on 16.03.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is further directed to issue the Form 5 to the petitioner as per the provisions of the DTVSV Act within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 19. It is needless to say that the effect of issuance of such Form 5 shall be given by the respondent-Income Tax Department as per the provisions of the DTVSV Act. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.