9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme based on revision against order under section 154 and falling within section 95(i)(c) of the Finance Act of 1998. Analysis: The petitioner's declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was rejected due to a revision filed against an order under section 154. The Assessing Officer rectified a deduction under section 80-I for the assessment year 1994-95, leading to a demand notice. The Finance Act of 1998 introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for settling tax arrears. The Scheme required the tax, interest, or penalty to be determined before March 31, 1998, and remaining unpaid on the declaration date. The petitioner fulfilled these conditions but faced rejection based on the revision's perceived purpose. The court emphasized that the designated authority should not assess the merits of pending revisions when considering declarations under the Scheme. The Revenue contended that the Scheme aimed to resolve existing litigations, not create new disputes. However, the court highlighted that the Scheme intended to resolve arrears tied to pending litigations. The court clarified that the Scheme did not limit parties' rights to pursue legal remedies. In this case, the rejection of the declaration based on the revision's timing was deemed unjustified. The court found that the designated authority erred in rejecting the declaration solely due to the pending revision. The petitioner had a genuine dispute regarding the deduction under section 80-I and the additional tax levied. The court emphasized that the revising authority should determine the revision's maintainability and merits, not the designated authority. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the rejection order and directing a fresh decision on the declaration in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court's judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme's conditions without prejudging the merits of pending revisions. The court emphasized the need for designated authorities to focus on the Scheme's criteria rather than delving into the substantive issues of ongoing litigations.
|
