TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as factually erroneous. Even if the declaration required an amendment, the Petitioner had under his letter dated 27th December, 2013 brought the correct facts to the notice of the Departmental Authorities. Such letter could have been treated as a request for amending the declaration. Nothing is brought to our notice to suggest that such amendment application had to be filed in a particular format. Even if so, the same would be a purely procedural aspect. The authority shall therefore grant the benefit of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme to the Petitioner - Petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO.12065 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Nitin Deshpande for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner also deposited with the Government-Revenue the installments as per the terms of the scheme of settlement. On 27th December, 2013, Petitioner addressed a letter to the department stating that he has already paid the tax dues of ₹ 3,02,841/, which is an excess of the first installment which the Petitioner had to deposit as per the scheme. 6. The Assistant Commissioner heard the Petitioner on the question of grant of benefits of the scheme. During such hearing also the Petitioner urged that the original declaration of tax dues of ₹ 4,73,527/was inclusive of an amount of ₹ 1,32,841/already paid by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner's net tax liability was only ₹ 3,40,686/. He further pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Assistant Commissioner. Facts as noted are not seriously in dispute. The Assistant Commissioner does not dispute the Petitioner's assertions that not the tax of ₹ 4,73,527/, but sum of ₹ 3,40,686/was outstanding. The declaration included a payment of ₹ 1,32,841/previously made. If that was the case, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the correct figure of tax dues. He could not have enforced the Petitioner's declaration which was factually erroneous. Even if the declaration required an amendment, the Petitioner had under his letter dated 27th December, 2013 brought the correct facts to the notice of the Departmental Authorities. Such letter could have been treated as a request for amendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
