2008 (3) TMI 337 - HC - Customs

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - meaning of the word pending in Section 95(i)(c) of the said scheme - Held that - Even irregular or incomplete filing of the appeal would come within the purview and ambit of Section 95(ii)(c) of the Act, the order of the learned single judge has to be set aside and is set aside. The appeals are allowed. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against non-suiting for prayer under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.

Analysis:
The appellant filed writ appeals against a common order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court. The learned single Judge held that the writ petition was not pending as of the claimed date due to improper presentation, barring the relief under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The correctness of this order was challenged in the appeals.

The revenue's counsel cited precedents, including a Division Bench decision and a Supreme Court judgment, regarding the interpretation of Section 95(i)(c) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998. The Supreme Court held that an appeal or case need only be pending, even if irregular or incomplete, for the scheme to apply.

In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of 'pending' in the context of the Scheme. The Scheme aimed to settle tax arrears at a discount, emphasizing the need to end pending matters. The Court clarified that the Scheme was a recovery scheme and a complete code, distinct from other provisions under the IT Act. The Court highlighted the importance of Section 95(i)(c) in resolving pending litigations comprehensively.

The Court also discussed the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, emphasizing the assessment process and the recovery of taxes. It noted that once the assessment was completed and taxes recovered, the matter should not be reopened.

Referring to previous judgments, the Court reiterated that an appeal does not cease to be pending even if irregular or incompetent. The Court emphasized that the determination of an appeal's validity is for the appellate court to decide.

Considering the precedents and the applicability of the decisions in similar cases, the High Court set aside the learned single Judge's order and allowed the appeals. A related writ appeal became infructuous and was dismissed accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court's detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents led to the setting aside of the previous order and the allowance of the appeals, ensuring consistency in the interpretation and application of the relevant laws and schemes.