2002 (7) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - The core question which arises for the consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in accordance with the provisions of section 90(1) and (2) of the Scheme of 1998. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the scheme. In view of the aforesaid order there cannot be any dispute that a writ petition was pending on the date of filing of the declaration. It is also not in dispute that the declaration was filed before the last date of filing. In these circumstances, it is obligatory for the designated authority to proceed with the declaration proceedings as provided under clause (1) and clause (2) of section 90. Accordingly, we direct the designated authority to proceed in accordance with law on the declaration filed by the petitioner.

Issues:
1. Entitlement to declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.
2. Interpretation of provisions under the Scheme of 1998.
3. Impact of pending writ petition on the Scheme application.

Issue 1: Entitlement to declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme

The case involved a petitioner, a goldsmith, who faced tax assessment disputes and sought to settle under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The petitioner filed a declaration under the Scheme for assessment years 1985-86 and 1989-90 before the last filing date of January 31, 1999. The core question was whether the applicant was entitled to the declaration under the Scheme as per the provisions of section 90(1) and (2) of the Scheme of 1998. The designated authority was obligated to proceed with the declaration proceedings as the petitioner fulfilled all requisite conditions for the scheme's application.

Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions under the Scheme of 1998

The court analyzed various provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, such as section 87 defining key terms like "declarant" and "designated authority," section 88 for settlement of tax payable, and section 90 detailing the time and manner of payment of tax arrear. Section 95 was crucial, stating that the Scheme would not apply to cases where no appeal, reference, writ petition, or revision application was admitted or pending before appellate authorities or courts on the date of filing the declaration. The court emphasized the significance of the expression "writ petition is admitted and pending" in determining the Scheme's applicability.

Issue 3: Impact of pending writ petition on the Scheme application

The court examined the impact of the pending writ petition on the petitioner's eligibility under the Scheme. The Division Bench admitted the writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, acknowledging arguable legal questions and the urgency of the matter due to the Scheme's impending deadline. Despite challenges raised by the Revenue, the court upheld the admission of the writ petition and directed the designated authority to proceed with the declaration proceedings as per the Scheme's provisions. The petitioner was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition, with the designated authority instructed to decide on the declaration within three weeks, ensuring no coercive recovery actions during the process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme's provisions, the petitioner's entitlement to declaration under the Scheme, and the impact of the pending writ petition on the Scheme application process.

← Previous Next →