The assessee filed writ petition to consider the revised declaration filed by the assessee. Dismissing the petition the Court held that the revised fresh declaration filed by the assessee on January 23, 2021 was non est and any consequential order passed thereon was of no significance. After the declaration of the assessee was accepted by issuance of certificate dated January 20, 2021 under section 5(1) of the 2020 Act, the appeals pending before the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 were deemed to have been withdrawn by operation of law. Therefore, the appeals could not be revived or restored merely because the assessee under a mistaken notion had filed a fresh declaration which was subsequently rejected by the designated authority. The revised fresh declaration filed by the assessee was not maintainable and consequently the order passed thereon was non est. Since the second declaration filed by the assessee was not maintainable and non est the other issues raised by the parties including the issue as to whether revised declaration of the assessee could have been rejected due to initiation of the criminal prosecution against one of the directors of the company were not considered. Court also held that the assessee had raised an alternative contention that it was entitled to the benefit of original declaration filed by it. Since the revised declaration was of no effect the parties to comply with the certificate issued in favour of the assessee pursuant to the original declaration in terms of section 5(2) of the 2020 Act. If the assessee deposited the amount determined as payable by the assessee under the certificate issued earlier within a period of fifteen days it should be accepted by the authorities and the declaration filed by the assessee would be deemed to have been satisfied in terms of the provisions of the 2020 Act. (AY.2012-13)