9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Analysis: The primary issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The Petitioner claims entitlement to the benefits under the Scheme, while the Respondents argue that the Scheme only applies to cases where a person has a liability in relation to customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962, which is due and payable. The Petitioner's case is centered around a communication received from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, dated 6th August, 1997. The Respondents contend that this communication is not a demand notice under the Act and does not qualify as a show cause notice. The Court examined the relevant clause in the Scheme, which defines "tax arrear" in relation to indirect tax enactment, including duties, cesses, interest, fine, or penalty determined as due or payable under the enactment. The Court concluded that the communication received by the Petitioner did not constitute a demand notice or show cause notice under the Act, and therefore, the Scheme was not applicable to the Petitioner's case. The Court emphasized that the communication advising the Petitioner to pay custom duty and interest, along with surrendering a license, was not a formal demand notice. It was noted that the communication was not sent to the Customs Authorities and did not initiate any action under the Act. The Court highlighted that for an amount to be considered due and payable, it must be enforceable by the prescribed authority under the relevant statute, signifying an existing obligation. The Court cited definitions of "due" from dictionaries to support its interpretation. As the communication did not create a liability enforceable under the Act, the Court held that the Scheme was not applicable to the Petitioner's situation. In conclusion, the Court held that if any amount had been deposited by the Petitioner pursuant to the communication, it must be refunded. The Court clarified that its decision did not address whether any custom duty was actually payable in relation to the transaction in question. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Petitioner's claim, ruling in favor of the Respondents based on the interpretation of the Scheme's applicability criteria to the specific circumstances of the case.
|
