9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the parties is that the petitioner is carrying on the business in the name and style of "Poonam Oil Industries" in Indore town. Respondent No. 1 introduced the Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1998, regarding settlement of income-tax dispute called the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ("the KVSS, 98"). The petitioner, as per the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, submitted a declaration prior to the stipulated date, i.e., on or before December 31, 1998 in respect of the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 relating to his income-tax matters. Respondent No. 1 issued a certificate as per the provision under section 90(1) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 dated February 26, 1999, vide annexure P3. This consolidated certificate was issued for 7 assessment years and the petitioner was directed to deposit the tax within 30 days from the date of this certificate. After receiving the certificate the petitioner submitted a representation annexure P4 dated March 11, 1999, received by the Department on March 12, 1999. According to him, as per section 88 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the rate of tax for an individual assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 6-7-1999 1990-91 2,47,160 31-3-1999 1991-92 3,89,824 31-3-1999 1992-93 91,956 31-3-1999 1993-94 7,59,128 6-7-1999 1994-95 11,74,874 31-3-1999 ------------------------------------------------- The respondents issued immunity certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears as per the provisions under section 90(2) read with section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 in respect of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, granting immunity certificate subject to the provisions contained in the Scheme from instituting any proceedings for prosecution for any offence under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This full and final settlement of tax arrears certificate was given by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner approached this High Court and filed the instant petition. The petition was admitted in the presence of counsel for the respondents Shri A.P. Patankar on November 20, 2002. Thereafter, from time to time, the petition was listed and today it is listed for final hearing. The respondents did not file any return though two years and ten months have already rolled by. However, he advanced his arguments without filing any return. He was heard at length. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record as well as the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, this court is of the opinion that refusal to issue immunity certificate as per the provisions under section 90(2) read with section 91 for the assessment year 1993-94 on the ground that tax was not deposited within thirty days, is contrary to the documents available on record. The respondents have issued first consolidated order/certificate as per the provision under section 90(1) for seven assessment years from 1988 to 1995 dated February 26, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted annexure P3 dated March 11, 1999, about calculation of tax at the rate of 40 per cent, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed and required to be paid by the petitioner for this year 1989-90 was the same in all the three orders amounting to Rs. 24,506 and the same is the position for the assessment year 1993-94 for which the issuance of immunity certificate has been refused by the respondents. After issuance of the certificate under the provisions of the Scheme, each amended certificate has superseded the earlier certificate. Consequently the computation of the period of 30 days shall be reckoned from the last certificate dated June 7, 1999, and the petitioner has deposited the tax according to the certificate within 30 days. In the instant case, the respondents, after issuing certificate annexure P6 for the seven assessment years dated June 7,1999, while issuing the immunity certificates annexures P7 and P8, also passed the order under challenge whereby the dismissed the declaration of the petitioner for the year 1993-94 without issuing show-cause or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is contrary to the principles of law of natural justice and in this order, no reason has been assigned for not accepting the declaration for the year 1993-94 for which the modified order was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 649. On going through the aforesaid decisions regarding condonation of delay, the same are not going to help the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case because, if the contention of the respondents is accepted regarding deposit of payment of tax within 30 days, from the first modified order/certificate dated March 26, 1999, the tax was deposited on July 6, 1999, which was after more than 90 days whereas the limitation was of 30 days. In the aforesaid judgments, in the cases of Sardar Machhi Singh [2000] 245 ITR 58 (MP) and Vijay Omprakash Bansal [2002] 257 ITR 649 (Bom) the delay was only of one or two days and in the case of Sardar Machhi Singh [2000] 245 ITR 58 (MP) Saturday March 25, 1999, was a bank holiday, twenty sixth was Sunday and on March 27, 1999, he deposited the payment in the bank. In these factual matrix, it could be said that the question involved in the case of Machhi Singh [2000] 245 ITR 58 (MP) was the question of computation of period of 30 days, as per the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
