HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot
Civil Appeal No. 4403 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4404 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4405 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4406 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4407 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4408 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 2003 / Civil Appeal No. 4410 of 2003
[2005] Supp. 2 SCR 1115 ·
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · B.P. Singh, J. · S.H. Kapadia, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee challenged rejection of his Scheme declarations. On 25 September 2002, the Gujarat High Court held them competent because the revision applications were pending when the declarations were filed. It directed the designated authority to determine the amount and issue a section 90(1) certificate, but added a direction requiring interest. These eight assessee appeals challenged only that additional direction (physical pages 2-3/SCR 1116 F-1117 D).
The Court recorded that its separately pronounced judgment in Revenue’s Civil Appeal 4411/2003 upheld the declarations’ competence. Eligibility was therefore the subject of the reciprocal appeal, not a fresh merits question in this interest-only group (physical page 3/SCR 1117 B-C).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court treated the Scheme as a recovery scheme with tax arrears outstanding as at 31 March 1998. The designated authority had to determine the arrears, disputed tax and amount payable for each year, taking account of relevant tax payments, and then issue the statutory certificate. The judgment notes the 60-day determination period and the section 92 appeal bar (physical pages 3-4/SCR 1117 G-1118 B).
On these facts the assessee could not pay the Scheme amount before the designated authority performed that ascertainment. The payment liability arose only after the amount payable under section 90 was determined. The Court therefore rejected the additional interest direction, particularly because the authority’s wrongful rejection had prevented the proper process. It did not calculate interest under any other provision or decide every consequence of default after certification (physical page 4/SCR 1118 B-D).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
Civil Appeals 4403-4410/2003 were allowed with no order as to costs. The High Court’s additional interest direction was set aside. Its direction to determine the Scheme amount was not annulled; the underlying declarations’ competence had been upheld in the separate Revenue appeal (physical pages 3-4/SCR 1117 B-D, 1118 C-D).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Assessee
Eight assessee appeals allowed; additional interest direction set aside; no costs
Final on the challenged additional interest direction on these facts
No blanket immunity from statutory interest, no decision permitting late post-certificate payment and no refund quantum or continuing Scheme entitlement.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Separate an obligation to pay a correctly ascertained settlement amount from interest imposed for the interval caused by an authority’s wrongful rejection. Preserve the declaration, rejection, court order and section 90 determination/certificate chronology rather than treating an unascertained amount as overdue by assumption.
For citation, identify these eight assessee appeals and the narrow interest relief. The reciprocal Revenue appeal supplies the distinct eligibility holding. Neither judgment makes the closed 1998 Scheme generally available today or replaces the rules of a different settlement enactment.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity and eight-appeal group
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2
- paragraphs
- Cover; jurisdiction; judicial opening at SCR 1116 F-G
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Narrow grievance and reciprocal appeal
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 2; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered opening and procedural paragraphs; SCR 1116 F-1117 F
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Ascertainment, interest reasoning and operative order
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered concluding reasoning and order; SCR 1117 G-1118 D
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
S.H. Kapadia, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998: Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998; connected Income-tax Act, 1961 proceedingsSpecified comparisons and their limits
- kind
- bounded same day reciprocal judgment comparison
- case id
- sc-2005-09-01-cit-jadeja-kvss-pendency
- case
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot v. Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja
- asset id
- S 2005 2 1119 1127
- source url
- Open cited source
- source sha256
- 7b5fdb956d542d2d0df0854cdb3a4be2af205a399883e0555788af83b2464412
- source file bytes
- 279083
- source pdf pages
- 9
- pdf pages
- 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9
- actually read
- Complete judicial text on physical pages 3-9 independently read; comparison particularly uses SCR 1121 D-1123 C and 1125 B-1127 B.
- finding
- The separately reported Revenue appeal 4411/2003 concerns declaration-date pendency and was dismissed; the designated authority’s rejection orders were quashed. It identifies the disputed revision years and reports completion of determination/recovery.
- scope limit
- Same-day reciprocal proceedings, not later treatment. Do not merge their appeal numbers or convert this interest group into a fresh eligibility adjudication.
Other statutory provisions and their separate scope
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme: sections 87(f), 88, 90(1), 92Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 4 PDF pages; SHA-256 24ee53e160cf1ad7b645733d858a1b504fa15dce03ca8bf4df22cce5999881fe. Original bytes preserved. Complete unnumbered judicial text from Kapadia J.'s opening at physical page 2/SCR 1116 F through the operative ending on physical page 4/SCR 1118 D. Earlier editorial headnote and reported metadata kept separate; no adjacent judgment.
- This four-page interest judgment gives no assessment-year inventory. The separately checked reciprocal Revenue judgment identifies AYs 1984-85 through 1991-92 for the rejected revision-based declarations, but no appeal-to-year allocation is inferred here.
- Direct determination of a settlement-declaration issue arising from income-tax arrears and pending tax proceedings. The Scheme provisions belong to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, not to the Income-tax Act section numbering. This is connected tax-settlement coverage, not a general 1961 Act charge or deduction holding.
- The report has no numbered judicial paragraphs and states no interest rate, amount, start date or refund direction. None is reconstructed.; The Court’s conclusion is expressly on the facts of this case, including wrongful rejection. Counsel’s wider no-provision submission is kept separate from the Court’s bounded reason for setting aside the direction.; The judgment uses section 87(f) for disputed tax and later calls it disputed amount. This note does not invent a separately verified statutory definition or a fresh arithmetic formula from that wording.; The reported High Court proceeding is SCA 2020/1999; the connected Supreme Court appeal group contains eight appeals. A one-appeal-to-one-assessment-year mapping is not supplied.
- The operative interest issue is under the historical 1998 Scheme. References to Income-tax and Wealth-tax liabilities are context; Scheme section numbers are not represented as Income-tax Act section numbers.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive subsequent judicial and statutory treatment has not been verified. Only the expressly identified bounded comparisons have been checked. No current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 mapping is certified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 4 pages
SHA-256: 24ee53e160cf1ad7b645733d858a1b504fa15dce03ca8bf4df22cce5999881fe
- bounded same day reciprocal judgment comparison — PDF 9 pages
SHA-256: 7b5fdb956d542d2d0df0854cdb3a4be2af205a399883e0555788af83b2464412
Related reviewed notes
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.