9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 971 - HC - Income TaxRejection of extension of time for payment of the last installment of Tax under Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS) - Seeking to allow extension of time, for payment of the last installment of Tax under Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 - seeking to direct to refund the tax amount paid in the first and second installment of IDS, 2016 - whether the writ applicant is entitled to get the amount already deposited by him under the scheme adjusted in any manner so far as his tax liability is concerned? HELD THAT - It is settled law that an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution would lie for enforcing the obligation of the State to refund and/or return the money-collected towards an illegal tax or duty. Ever since the decision in the case of THE SALES TAX OFFICER, BANARAS AND OTHERS VERSUS KANHAIYA LAL MAKUND LAL SARAF AND OTHERS 1958 (9) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT , it has been consistently held that the payment towards tax or duty which is without authority of law is a payment made under mistake within the meaning of S. 72 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 72 is based on equitable principles. Therefore, by claiming to retain the tax which has been collected without the authority of law, the Government cannot enrich itself and it is liable to make restitution to the person who had made payment under any mistake or under coercion. In the case on hand, the payment with respect to the first two installments were made in accordance with the scheme of 2016. It is the failure on the part of the writ applicant to deposit the amount of the third installment in time that created the trouble for him. The scheme, more particularly, the Clause 191 thereof specifically provides that any amount of tax paid under clause 184 in pursuance of a declaration made under clause 183 shall not be refundable. The case on hand is not one of illegal recovery of tax by the Revenue, or in other words, any tax paid by the assessee under mistake of law. This is a case of default on the part of the writ applicant as an assessee, and the consequences of the default are itself provided under the scheme in the form of Clause 191. Thus, no case is made out by the writ applicant for interference - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for payment of the last installment of tax under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016. 2. Refund or adjustment of the tax amount paid in the first and second installments under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016. Detailed Analysis: 1. Extension of Time for Payment of the Last Installment of Tax: The writ applicant sought an extension of time for the payment of the last installment of tax under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS). The scheme required the declarant to pay the tax, surcharge, and penalty by specified dates. The applicant paid the first two installments on time but failed to pay the last installment due to being remanded in judicial custody. The applicant’s request for an extension was rejected by the Commissioner and later by the CBDT, stating that the declarant had sufficient time to arrange funds even while on bail and that the situation was not beyond the declarant’s control. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the scheme’s provisions, particularly regarding the finality of declarations and payments, must be strictly adhered to. The court noted that the powers under section 119 of the Income Tax Act to condone delays should only be exercised in rare and exceptional cases, which did not apply here. 2. Refund or Adjustment of the Tax Amount Paid in the First and Second Installments: The writ applicant alternatively sought a refund or adjustment of the tax amount already paid in the first and second installments under the IDS. The court referred to Clause 191 of the scheme, which explicitly states that any amount of tax paid under the scheme is not refundable. The court also noted that the failure to pay the last installment resulted in the declaration being deemed never to have been made, as per Clause 187(3) of the scheme. The court distinguished this case from others cited by the applicant, such as the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Sangeeta Agrawal, where the Supreme Court directed the refund or adjustment of amounts paid under a non-compliant declaration. The court found that in the present case, the payments were made in accordance with the scheme, and the issue was the failure to pay the last installment on time. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to a refund or adjustment of the amounts already paid. Conclusion: The court rejected the writ application, upholding the decision to deny the extension of time for the payment of the last installment under the IDS and refusing the request for a refund or adjustment of the amounts paid in the first and second installments. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the scheme’s provisions and the limited scope for condoning delays under section 119 of the Income Tax Act.
|
