9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to rejection of declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act r/w Rule 3(1)(b) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Rules, 1998 based on restoration of appeal by CEGAT, Chennai. Analysis: The petitioner submitted a declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act along with an application for restoration of appeal pending before the Tribunal at Chennai. The respondent rejected the declaration citing lack of documentary evidence regarding the restoration of appeal. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that once the appeal is restored, it is deemed to have been pending on the date of the declaration. The court examined the material on record and noted that the appeal was restored after the declaration was made. Citing judgments from different High Courts, the court emphasized that restoration relates back to the earlier period. Referring to the judgments, the court held that subsequent restoration reverts back to the date of the application, and the petitioner's declaration should be considered on its merits. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and directed the respondents to reconsider the declaration on its merits and pass orders in accordance with the law. This judgment clarifies the legal principle that restoration of an appeal relates back to the date of the original application. The court relied on precedents from different High Courts to establish that once an appeal is restored, it is deemed to have been pending from the date of the initial application. The court emphasized the importance of considering the merits of the declaration in light of the restoration of the appeal, highlighting that subsequent decisions on the appeal should not affect the consideration of the declaration under the Scheme. The court's decision to set aside the rejection and instruct the respondents to review the declaration aligns with the legal interpretation that restoration should be given retrospective effect to ensure fairness and justice in the proceedings.
|
