Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (6) TMI 1075

a report on 28.11.2005 and the Settlement Commission has totally ignored the same - Held that:- The observation made by the Settlement Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2009 is set aside, as controverted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A direction is issued to the Settlement Commission to look into the Investigation Report submitted by the Commissioner (Investigation) appointed by the Settlement Commission and also the materials that are going to be produced by the petitioner before the Commission and arrive at a conclusion - matter remanded to Settlement Commission. - W.P(MD)No.11295 of 2009 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - M. Govindaraj, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Maharajan For the Respondents : Mr.B.Vij .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Bench and requested four weeks time for submitting the details required to establish the admitted liability and written response to the department's letter dated 18.6.2009 mentioned above after consulting his client. The Representative of the Revenue also requested for about two weeks time to examine the further evidences to be made available by the advocate. 9. In view of the foregoing the Bench was pleased to grant four weeks time to the applicant and a further two weeks to the department, during which period, both the parties shall sit together, reconcile and report back for final disposal of the case." 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased goods through unaccounted sources and he does not have any documentary evidence t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

n. 13. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. All the cases are remitted to the 2nd respondent Commission with a direction to the Commission to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and the Revenue. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Commissioner (Investigation) appointed under Settlement Commission has submitted a report on 28.11.2005 and the Settlement Commission has totally ignored the same. In support of his contention that the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) shall be relied on, he cited the judgment of this Court in Bond .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

pplication for settlement under Section 127C and thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner (Investigation) based on the order passed by the Settlement Commission in terms of 127C (6). At the time of enquiry the petitioner has pointed out his version of the case and that has been accepted and a report has been filed. Therefore, there is no multiple disclosures as stated by the Settlement Commission. This finding of the first respondent is totally erroneous. In the application the admitted duty liability is given and it has been paid. This establishes petitioner's co-operation in the settlement case. 16. In para 24 of the order, the first respondent has observed that the Revenue has conceded that there were errors in the cal .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e errors in the calculation and the demand made in the show cause notice should be scaled down drastically. This is evident from paragraph 24 of the investigation report, which has already been extracted. 18. It therefore, follows that the first respondent has failed to consider the report of the Commissioner (Investigation) and pass appropriate orders and simply shirked its duty by throwing the blame on the petitioner as if the petitioner had been making disclosures many a time each at variance with the other. As pointed out earlier there has been only one disclosure at the time of admission. The clarifications given by the petitioner is only at the time of investigation by the Commissioner (Investigation) who was duly authorised by the fi .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s valid evidence. Therefore, the matter has to be decided based on those evidence. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. Admittedly, on a previous occasion, this Court, by order dated 19.12.2008 passed in W.P(MD)No.3457, 3458, 4347 to 4351 of 2007, has given a categorical finding that the Revenue should produce positive evidence and co- operate with the Settlement Commission. 8. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he will also try to produce documentary evidence as much as possible. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation made by the Settlement Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2009 is set aside, as controverted .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||