TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pollo Tyres Limited. Apollo Tyres Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, respondent No. 2 is the Designated Authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Government of India announced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme"). The scheme is contained in section 86 to section 98 of' the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The object of the scheme as stated when the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1998, was introduced is as follows : "Litigation has been the bane of both direct and indirect taxes. A lot of energy of the Revenue Department is being frittered in pursuing a large number of litigations pending at different levels for long periods of time. Considerable revenue also gets locked up in such disputes. Declogging the system will not only incentivise honest taxpayers, enable the Government to realise its reasonable clues much earlier but coupled with administrative measures, would also make the system more user-friendly. I, therefore, propose to introduce a new scheme called 'Samadhan'." The scheme applies to indirect taxes also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be settled at the rate of 50 per cent. of the amount of such fine, penalty or interest, due or payable as on the date of the making of the declaration under section 88. Section 92 of the scheme says that no appellate authority shall proceed to decide any issue relating to the disputed chargeable expenditure, disputed chargeable interest, disputed income, etc., specified in the declaration and in respect of which an order had been made under section 90 by the designated authority or the payment of the sum determined under that section. Section 87 with regard to tax arrear states as follows : The scheme will apply to the amount of duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty due or payable under that enactment as on March 31, 1998, but remaining unpaid as on the date of making a declaration under section 88. On December 8, 1998, the first respondent issued what is called the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998. This order is dated December 8, 1998. It is produced as exhibit P-3 in the case. As per clause 1(2) of the order, it shall be deemed to come into force on September 1, 1998. We are concerned with clause 2 of the above order. Clause 2 of the order st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. But in the case of the petitioner a different treatment is meted out. The benefit of the scheme is given to those co-noticees with respect to whom the adjudication is not over and the show cause notice is pending for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner, senior advocate, Sri Arshad Hidayathulla, submitted that this is a case of discrimination because, according to him all the co-noticees belong to the same class and there is no rationale to discriminate among them. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event, since appeals are pending against adjudication proceedings, the words "pending adjudication" in clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order should be read as to include pending in appeal also. If such an interpretation is made there will be no discrimination. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated as follows : The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the original petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has availed of the facility offered by the Government of India. Once a person accepts and submits himself to the scheme and takes a chance before the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Kar Vivad Samadhail Scheme should be declared as discriminatory in so far as it does not give the benefit to the co-noticees with regard to whom the adjudication is over. The further contention was that the expression "is pending adjudication" appearing in clause 2 of exhibit P-3 should be interpreted to take in any proceedings where appeals are also pending. The object of the scheme appears to be to shorten the litigation and settle the dispute between the parties. It is with this end in view that the scheme has been promulgated. Tax arrears has been defined with regard to indirect tax enactment as the amount of duties, cesses, interest, etc., determined as due or payable under that enactment as on March 31, 1998, but remaining unpaid as on the date of making a declaration under section 88. Under section 88 of the scheme, where a person makes a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of section 89, then the liability shall be discharged as per the scheme. It can be seen that so far as the sections were concerned, no distinction is there made with regard to a principal noticee or a co-noticee. All are entitled to get the benefit of the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Officer valued them at Rs. 7,24,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Acquisition Range, Ernakulam, ordered acquisition of the property on March 31, 1981. The appellants filed an appeal to the Tribunal by order dated October 31, 1981. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings were cancelled. As against the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal under section 269H before the High Court of Kerala. During the pendency of the appeal, Chapter XX-C was introduced in the Income-tax Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular which reads as follows : "With a view to achieve early finalisation of proceedings, under the existing Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Board has decided that with effect from 1st April 1986, acquisition proceedings under section 269C will not be initiated in respect of an immovable property for which the apparent consideration is Rs. 5 lakhs or less and that where acquisition proceedings have been initiated by issue of notice under section 269D, the proceedings will be dropped if the apparent consideration of the immovable property is below Rs. 5 lakhs." When the appeal was taken up by the High Court, the appellants therein con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
