9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not enforceable by recourse to obligatory provisions of Finance Act, 1994, except when so appended as pleaded by the appellant, M/s Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC), and that scope of remedy before the Tribunal under section 86 of Finance Act, 1994, being restricted only to recovery ordered under section 73 and section 83A of Finance Act, 1994, precludes jurisdiction to dispose off the appeal as espoused by Learned Authorised Representative, would not be consonant with the ends of justice and, not merely from lack of convergence of the two, it may be necessary to hearken back to the bizarre circumstances in which this dispute has turned up before us. 2. The manner in which the statutory activity of M/s Deposit Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period from October 2011 to December 2013 as objection to subsuming of the tax amount within the total premium collected instead of being a charge on the premium approved by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which is not. However, even that attained finality when differential tax liability of Rs. 118,64,34,956 arising therefrom, though initially resisted by the assessee, was, thereafter, acceded to and deposited vide two tranches on 12th January 2015 and 30th January 2015 along with interest of Rs. 39,64,81,068 with the first tranche. Thereafter, the issue lay dormant until application for claim of refund was filed, even as notice dated 27th May 2016 for demand of interest of Rs. 17,40,18,648, pertaining to the second tranche of tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative at length. 5. Without going into the thrust of the submissions made by both sides on the nature of the dispute as set out by them and narrated supra, we take note that the lack of legal sanction for recovery Rs. 118,64,34,956, espoused for adopting 'cum-tax' computation, has attained finality. As the liability to tax does not arise and, in any case, ordered to be refunded to the assessee, charging of interest would not arise notwithstanding the date on which those deposits had been made. 6. Therefore, relying solely on the facts and the invalidation of short-payment of tax on premium collected between October 2011 and December 2013, we set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
