IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
M/s.Value Added Futuristic Management Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (T) No. 1949 of 2021
Decided on : 14-07-2022
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act - Rejection of Revised Declaration - Section 9(c) - [Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020] - [Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7] - The court discussed the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, including the filing of a declaration, determination of amount payable, and the issuance of a certificate by the Designated Authority. The court emphasized the conclusive nature of the certificate issued under Section 5(1) of the Scheme and the lack of provision for filing a revised declaration after the acceptance of the original declaration. The court also highlighted the non-maintainability of the revised declaration and the legal significance of the certificate issued under the Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the rejection of its revised declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner's original declaration was accepted, but a revised declaration was rejected by the Designated Authority, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revised/fresh declaration filed by the petitioner was non-est in the eyes of the law and any consequential order passed was of no significance. The court also observed that the original declaration, once accepted, cannot be supplanted by a subsequent revised declaration. The court refrained from further observations on other issues raised by the parties.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the revised declaration, the legal effect of the rejection of the revised declaration, and the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of the original declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revised declaration filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in the eye of the law and consequently the order passed thereto was non-est in the eye of the law. The court emphasized the conclusive nature of the certificate issued under Section 5(1) of the Scheme and the lack of provision for filing a revised declaration after the acceptance of the original declaration.
Final Decision: The court directed the parties to comply with the certificate dated 20.01.2021 issued in favor of the petitioner pursuant to the original declaration. The petitioner was given fifteen days to make the deposit of the determined amount, which would then be accepted by the Respondent-authorities, satisfying the declaration filed by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Per Deepak Roshan, J :
Heard Mr. Kartik Kurmy along with Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocates for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax Department.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:-
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to act in terms of the certificate issued in Form-3 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 2020 (vide Annexure-14) after granting the benefit of adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13, which is duly reflected in the official portal of the respondent-authorities itself.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of declaration, declaring that the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the declaration/revised declaration filed by the petitioner under the Act, 2020 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon the respondent authorities.
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 20,95,633/-, which is refundable to the petitioner in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 2020 consequent upon acceptance of its declaration under the said Act;
(v) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 20,95,633/-with effect from the date when the refund of the said amount is due till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the Parliament promulgated ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’), published vide Gazette Notification dated 17th March, 2020 with an objective of providing resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Subsequent to promulgation of the Scheme, Central Government framed ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020’ (for short ‘the Rules’) for giving effect to the Scheme. Section 4 of the Scheme provided, inter alia, for filing of a declaration and the said declaration along with undertaking was to be filed by a declarant in statutory Form-1 and Form-2, as prescribed under the Rules. Section 3 of the Scheme provided, inter alia, the amount which a declarant would be liable to pay pursuant to declaration filed by it and it is an undisputed fact that case of the Petitioner was falling under Section 3(a) of the Scheme, wherein the petitioner-declarant, as against its total tax arrears, was only required to pay the amount of ‘disputed tax’. Section 7 of the Scheme further provided, inter alia, that any amount paid in pursuance of a declaration under the Act would not be refundable under any circumstances. However, said Section itself, by way of explanation, provided that if any amount has been paid under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of tax arrears before filing of the declaration, and, if the said amount exceeds the amount payable under Section 3 of the Scheme pursuant to declaration made by the declarant, then the declarant would be entitled for refund of such excess amount without any interest. The Scheme further provided, inter alia, that subsequent to filing of declaration by the declarant, Designated Authority was req
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys & Anr.
The conclusive nature of the certificate issued under Section 5(1) of the Scheme and the lack of provision for filing a revised declaration after the acceptance of the original declaration.
The importance of verifying the truthfulness of the declarant's statement and the need for a liberal approach in settling legacy disputes under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019.
Point of Law - if an appeal is filed with an application for condonation of delay and the appeal is admitted by the appellate authority before the date of filing of the declaration, the benefit is to....
Income Tax - tax arrear - debarment must be in respect of tax arrear as defined - To hold that an assessee would not be eligible to file a declaration because there is a pending prosecution for asses....
Taxation - Self-assessment tax - Assessment order - The ineligibility to file declaration relates to an assessment year in respect of which prosecution has been instituted on or before the date of de....
Point of Law : Income Tax Act – Scheme "provide for resolution of disputed tax – Cut of date – Delay in making application - Scheme was intended to give a quietus to huge pending direct tax litigatio....
Having regard to the objective of the scheme, in a case of this nature, a reasonable and pragmatic approach has to be adopted so that a declarant can avail the benefits of the scheme; a declarant who....
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.