Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that ; the time periods fixed for the payment of the third instalment of the remaining 50 per cent. of the total tax, surcharge and penalty payable, were mandatory and had to be adhered to. Mere involvement in office work and marketing activities could not be a good justification and ground to seek and ask for extension of time by the assessees. Forgetting to pay the dues was unbelievable and a lame excuse. It was not an extraordinary case which justified invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution and grant further time beyond the fixed time, even assuming that the time stipulated, under the Scheme of 2016, could have been extended by the Board under section 119(2) . In the case of Meena Rastogi , the Court held that old age and ill health or forgetfulness to make payment and the assesse was 70 years age cannot be the ground to extension of time for payment of third instalment .