IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
M/s. Kuber Builders - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2005 of 2001
Decided On : 26-06-2020
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Tax Liability - Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 90(1) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 - Sections 220(2), 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c) - KVSS Scheme, 1998 - Rule 1998 - Certificate of Intimation - Tax Recovery - Writ of Mandamus - Tax Demand - Tax Arrears - High Court Order - Quantum Appeal - Tax Recovery Officer - Tax Dispute - Tax Arrears - Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Penalty - Interest
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, filed income tax return for A.Y. 1987-88 showing a loss. The tax liability was determined at Rs.3,11,206.00. The petitioner deposited Rs.6,00,000.00 pursuant to a High Court order to stay recovery proceedings. The Government introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and the petitioner applied for settlement of its liability under the scheme for A.Y. 1987-88. The Revenue issued a Certificate of Intimation determining a 50% liability of Rs.6,16,838.00 for penalty and interest under the scheme. The Revenue adjusted Rs.3,11,206.00 from the deposit towards the outstanding tax liability, leading to the petitioner filing a petition seeking multiple reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue's adjustment of the deposit amount towards the outstanding tax liability was not justified, as the liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme had been determined separately. The court also noted that the Certificate of Intimation did not provide a precise period for the computation of penalty and interest. It concluded that the petitioner was not liable to pay any interest on the adjusted amount and set aside the Certificate of Intimation, directing the Revenue to compute and intimate any outstanding penalty and interest within 8 weeks.
Issues: The issues involved the appropriation and adjustment of the deposit amount, the petitioner's eligibility under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and the validity of the Certificate of Intimation issued by the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue's adjustment of the deposit amount towards the tax liability was not justified, and the petitioner was not liable to pay any interest on the adjusted amount. It also found that the Certificate of Intimation did not provide a precise period for the computation of penalty and interest, leading to the setting aside of the Certificate of Intimation and directions for the Revenue to compute and intimate any outstanding penalty and interest within 8 weeks.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Certificate of Intimation, directed the Revenue to compute and intimate any outstanding penalty and interest within 8 weeks, and discharged the rule, disposing of the petition with each party bearing their own costs.
JUDGMENT
Milind N. Jadhav, J. - By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"(a) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to declare the appropriation of Rs.3,11,206/- made by the T.R.O. towards the Tax demand of the A. Y. 1987-88 out of sum of Rs.6,00,000/- deposited with the Respondent by the Petitioner under the said High Court order dated 13/8/91 as illegal;
(b) This Hon''ble court be pleased to declare that the Petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme so far as they relate to the Tax dispute / Tax arrears of A.Y.1987-88.
(c) This Hon''ble court be pleased to set aside and or quash the Certificate of Intimation issued under Section 90 (1) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rules 1998, dated 26/2/99.
(d) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of Mandamus against the Respondents directing them to consider the Petitioners'' case for Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and accord the benefit there under as may be applicable to the Petitioners.
(e) This Hon''ble court be pleased to direct the Respondents to adjust the illegally appropriated sum of Rs.3,11,206/- towards the tax liability if any fixed under the Kar Samadhan Scheme for the tax dispute / arrears of the A.Y. 1987-88.
(f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition the Respondents, their officers and their employees be restrained from recovering any amount from the Petitioners by way of tax, interest or penalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of A.Y. 1987-88 pursuant to the letter dated 19-7-91 at Exhibit ''A'' to the Petition or under any further order.
(g) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (f) may be granted.
(h) Such other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of this case may require may be granted."
2. This Court after hearing the matter on 17.10.2001 had passed the following interim order :-
"1. Heard. In the matter of Writ Petition No.2490 of 1991, this court issued the following order :
1. The Petitioners do pay to the Respondents a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) in pursuance of the letter dated 19 th July, 1991 being Exhibit ''Q'' to the Writ Petition No.2492/91 and Exhibit ''H'' to the Writ Petition No.2493/91 in the manner following :-
a) Rs.50,000/- by a cheque, dt.15.8.1991.
b) Rs.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 Rs.6,00,000/- is paid within the period stipulated above, the demand notices in respect of the amounts mentioned in the letter dated 19 th 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 28 th 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 6 th November, 2001 with the intimation to the litigating parties that on that date this Writ Petition would be finally decided. The Respondents are permitted to file the affidavit in the meanwhile.
5. Rule issued in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f).
6. All concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Associate."
3. At the outset, it may be necessary to advert to the relevant facts in the present case to decide the petition.
3.1 The petitioner
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.