9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of para. 2 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998. 2. Whether para. 2 of the Order of 1998 is discriminatory and ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Applicability of the KVS Scheme to co-noticees at different stages of proceedings. 4. Refund of amounts paid by co-noticees under the KVS Scheme. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of para. 2 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998: The petitioners, top executive officers of Apollo Tyres Ltd., sought to interpret para. 2 of the Order of 1998 to extend the benefits of the KVS Scheme to co-noticees, including themselves, at the appellate stage. They argued that the term "civil proceedings" in para. 2 should be read to include appellate proceedings. The court, however, found that the language of para. 2 clearly intended to limit the benefits to proceedings at the demand notice or show-cause notice stage, not extending to appellate proceedings. The court emphasized that the Central Government's power under section 97 of the Scheme was to remove difficulties, not to extend benefits inconsistently with the main Scheme. 2. Whether para. 2 of the Order of 1998 is discriminatory and ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India: The petitioners argued that if para. 2 did not include appellate proceedings, it would be discriminatory under article 14 of the Constitution, as it would treat co-noticees at different stages of proceedings differently. The court rejected this argument, stating that the classification of co-noticees at the show-cause notice stage and those at the appellate stage was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the Scheme's objective. The court found that the differential treatment was justified to encourage settlement of cases at the earliest stage and to expedite revenue collection. 3. Applicability of the KVS Scheme to co-noticees at different stages of proceedings: The court analyzed the definition of "tax arrears" under section 87(m) of the Scheme and noted the distinction between sub-clauses (a) and (b). Sub-clause (a) covered tax arrears at any stage, including appeal, while sub-clause (b) referred to tax arrears at the demand notice or show-cause notice stage. The court concluded that the Order of 1998 was intended to address difficulties in settling cases at the show-cause notice stage, not at the appellate stage. Thus, co-noticees at the appellate stage were not entitled to the benefits extended by para. 2 of the Order. 4. Refund of amounts paid by co-noticees under the KVS Scheme: The petitioners sought a refund of the amounts they had paid under the KVS Scheme, arguing that their declarations and payments were made under a legal misconception. The court found no basis for refund, as the co-noticees had made declarations and paid 50% of the tax arrears voluntarily under the Scheme. The court emphasized that the Scheme and the Order did not contemplate refunds for co-noticees who had already settled their cases at the appellate stage. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that para. 2 of the Order of 1998 did not extend the benefits of the KVS Scheme to co-noticees at the appellate stage and that the provision was not discriminatory under article 14 of the Constitution. The court also denied the petitioners' request for a refund of the amounts paid under the Scheme.
|
