2004 (10) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Refund limitation - Petitioner on the one hand contend that respondents are not issuing necessary certificate in favour of petitioner No. 1-company on the ground of delayed payment after the expiry of the period of limitation provided under section 90(2) of the Act of 1998 and, on the other hand, they are not refunding the amount of Rs. 5,06,914, which was deposited by petitioner No. 1-company, on March 30, 1999. Therefore, the respondents be directed to refund that amount with interest to the petitioner. Neither there is any grievance made in this petition about this, nor any prayer made in this petition. Therefore, there is no question of considering this oral prayer of the petitioner. That apart, there is a provision under section 93 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, under which any amount paid pursuant to the declaration made under section 88 by the declarant is not refundable under any circumstances. Therefore, there is no question of granting this oral prayer for refund of the said amount which was deposited by petitioner No. 1-company in pursuance of the declaration made by it under section 88(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998

Issues:
- Entitlement to benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
- Delay in payment under section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998
- Issuance of necessary certificate under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
- Refund of amount paid by petitioner No. 1-company

Entitlement to Benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
The petitioners, M/s. B & Brothers Engineering Works and its partner, filed a petition seeking the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, under article 226 of the Constitution. The scheme aimed to settle tax dues quickly and easily. The petitioners filed a declaration form under the scheme, and the Commissioner of Central Excise determined the payable amount. Despite a slight delay in payment due to bank strikes and holidays, the petitioners paid the amount within a reasonable timeframe. However, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise denied issuing the necessary certificate under the scheme, leading to the petition before the court.

Delay in Payment under Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998:
The issue revolved around the timeline for payment as per section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998. The designated authority had ordered the petitioners to pay a specific amount within 30 days. While the petitioners paid within this period, a delay of one day occurred due to bank strikes and holidays. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act and emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines. Despite acknowledging the delay as a harsh case, the court held that without provisions for condonation of delay, it couldn't intervene in favor of the petitioners.

Issuance of Necessary Certificate under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
The petitioners argued that the Joint Commissioner erred in denying the certificate under the scheme due to the delayed payment. They contended that once the amount was accepted, the certificate should have been issued. The court, however, highlighted the absence of provisions for condoning delays in the Act. It noted that without such provisions, the authority couldn't issue the certificate based on belated payments, thereby dismissing the petition.

Refund of Amount Paid by Petitioner No. 1-Company:
The petitioners sought a refund of the amount paid, emphasizing that the respondents were not issuing the necessary certificate and also not refunding the deposited sum. However, the court pointed out the provision under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1998, which stated that amounts paid under declarations were non-refundable. As the petition did not include a prayer for a refund, the court rejected the oral request for a refund.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that without provisions for condonation of delay, it couldn't grant relief to the petitioners. The court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and provisions in such cases.

← Previous Next →