TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner. ORDER: The Certificate of Intimation dated 26.02.1999 which confers liability on the petitioner towards payment of penalty and interest under the Act for the assessment year 1987-88 is set aside. The respondents / Revenue are directed to compute and intimate to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks any outstanding penalty and interest, if payable, by the petitioner for the assessment year 1987-88 until the date of deposit (i.e. October 1991) by the petitioner of the amount of ₹ 6,00,000.00 with the Revenue. If the petitioner is liable to pay any penalty and interest, the same shall be adjusted from the balance amount of ₹ 6,00,000.00, if any, held by the Revenue. If the Revenue holds any further balance amount after adjusting the above penalty and interest, if any, the same shall be adjusted towards the outstanding liability for assessment year 1985-86. Rule is discharged. - WRIT PETITION NO.2005 OF 2001 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. C.M. Kothari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Sumandevi Yadav, Advocate for Respondent. JUDGMENT (PER MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - a) ₹ 50,000/- by a cheque, dt.15.8.1991. b) ₹ 5,50,000/- within 8 weeks from today. 2. The Respondents and / or Officers shall not take any proceedings for the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the letter, dated 19.7.1991 for a period of eight weeks; 3. If the said amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- is paid within the period stipulated above, the demand notices in respect of the amounts mentioned in the letter dated 19th July, 1991 are stayed till the hearing and final disposal of the quantum Appeal for the assessment year 1985 -86; 4. In default, the Respondents are at liberty to enforce the demand; 5. Petition to stand disposed off accordingly. 2. Mr. Kothari today submitted that these quantum appeals have been dismissed by the Tribunal on 28th February 2001. As per submissions advanced by Mr. Kothari, the Respondents and their officers are recovering the said amount of assessment tax from the Petitioner and therefore Petitioner is making a prayer for a rule as well as rule nisi. 3. Mr. Chatterjee is also heard on behalf of the Respondents. 4. We issue the rule, returnable on 6th November, 2001 with the intimation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.07.1991 during the pendency of the respective quantum appeals, subject to the petitioner making a payment of ₹ 6,00,000.00 towards the aggregate demand of ₹ 12,44,126.00 as stated in the demand notice as condition precedent for staying the recovery proceedings. The petitioner deposited the amount of ₹ 6,00,000.00 with the Income Tax Department pursuant to the above order on or about October, 1991. The demand notice dated 19.7.1991 was, therefore, stayed. 3.5. In 1998 the Government of India introduced a scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the KVSS scheme, 1998 ) for settlement of disputes relating to income tax or any other direct tax, which was unpaid or under litigation. The feature of the said scheme was that all arrears of income tax could be settled at current rate and interest and penalty could be wholly / 50% waived. 3.6. The petitioner considered itself eligible and entitled under the KVSS scheme, 1998 and therefore filed its declaration in form 1A under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Rules, 1998 before the designated authority for settlement of its liability for assessment year 1987 88 only. The designated auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the petitioner was denied the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. 4.1 Mr. Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue however has supported the action taken by the respondents. 5. We have perused the pleadings, the demand notice dated 19.07.1991, the application made by the petitioner declarant dated 29.12.1998 under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the Certificate of Intimation dated 26.02.1999 issued by the Revenue. We may state that the petitioner had filed a declaration in form 1A dated 29.12.1998 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for settlement of the outstanding demand / tax liability for assessment year 1987 88 only. In the declaration filed by the petitioner, according to the petitioner the total tax liability payable by the petitioner was ₹ 2,74,316.00. However on consideration of the petitioner s case, the Revenue issued Certificate of Intimation dated 26.02.1999 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and determined the amount of ₹ 6,16,838.00 being the 50% liability payable by the petitioner for assessment year 1987 88 which has been computed and levied against penalty and interest only. Thus, outstanding liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings for the recovery of the amount mentioned in the letter, dated 19.7.1991 for a period of eight weeks; 3. If the said amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- is paid within the period stipulated above, the demand notices in respect of the amounts mentioned in the letter, dated 19th July, 1991 are stayed till the hearing and final disposal of the quantum appeal for the assessment year 1985-86; 4. In default, liberty to respondents to enforce the demand; 5. Petition to stand disposed off accordingly. 8. The above two writ petitions were filed challenging the composite demand notice dated 19.07.1991. The said demand notice which was in respect of two assessment years viz. 1985-86 and 1987-88 came to be stayed on the petitioner complying with the direction of deposit of ₹ 6,00,000.00 contained in paragraph No.3 of the above order. The petitioner deposited the amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- with the Revenue and thus the demand notice was stayed. Paragraph No.3 of the order also records that the stay would be in effect till the hearing and final disposal of quantum appeal for the assessment year 1985-86. In the present petition, the petitioner has not furnished the out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax demand was appropriated and adjusted (as it was received in October 1991), then the petitioner cannot be burdened with payment of penalty and interest in the year 1999, merely because the interim order in WP 2490/1991 did not give such directions for adjustment and appropriation. In any event, since October 1991, the Income Tax Department was in receipt of ₹ 6,00,000.00 from the petitioner. 11. In so far the reliefs in prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) are concerned, the same relate to the declaration filed by the petitioner under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for settlement of its liability for assessment year 1987-88. Once the petitioner had filed its declaration dated 29.12.1998 under the said scheme, the same was considered by the Revenue and after due consideration the Revenue issued the Certificate of Intimation under Section 90(i) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 in respect of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 read with Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Rules 1998 in form No.2 A thereof, declaring the 50% liability payable towards penalty and interest by the petitioner at ₹ 6,16,838.00. Once, this liability of the petitioner was crystallized on the petitioner s own applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
