2004 (10) TMI 104 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
2. Payment deadline under Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998.
3. Issuance of necessary certificate under the scheme.
4. Delay in payment and consequences.
5. Jurisdiction of the court in the absence of provisions for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, for settlement of tax arrears. The scheme aimed to provide a one-time offer for easy settlement of tax dues. The petitioners filed a declaration under the scheme, but the designated authority determined a lower amount payable than declared by the petitioners. The petitioners contended they were entitled to the full benefit under the scheme and sought a declaration to that effect.

2. The crucial issue revolved around the payment deadline under Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998. The designated authority had ordered the petitioners to pay a specific amount within 30 days. The petitioners argued that due to bank strikes and public holidays, they made the payment one day after the deadline. The court examined the timeline of payment and the provisions of the Act to determine the validity of the payment made by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners claimed that despite making the payment as directed, the necessary certificate under the scheme was not issued to them. They contended that the failure to issue the certificate was unjustified and sought relief from the court to compel the authorities to provide the required documentation.

4. The court scrutinized the circumstances of the delayed payment by the petitioners and the subsequent actions of the authorities. Despite acknowledging the delay, the court emphasized the absence of provisions for condonation of such delays. The court highlighted the strict adherence to statutory timelines and the limitations on the authority's discretion in cases of delayed payments.

5. The judgment underscored the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in the absence of specific provisions for condoning delays in payments under the Finance Act, 1998. The court noted the petitioner's reference to a judgment from another High Court where delay was condoned but dismissed its relevance due to the unavailability of supporting evidence. Additionally, the court addressed a request for a refund of the deposited amount, highlighting the statutory provisions that rendered such refunds non-permissible under the Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the strict adherence to statutory timelines and the limitations of the court's discretionary powers in the absence of specific provisions for condonation of delays.