2005 (6) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioners under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1997 had filed a declaration, disclosing an income of Rs. 10 lakhs. - The basic dispute in the above petition is that the entire tax liability was not paid within a period of three months as contemplated under the Scheme - Shri Rao, learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has already adjusted Rs. 1,03,000, paid within three months, towards various tax liability of the petitioners. Shri Rao could not controvert that the settlement officer has made it abundantly clear that any amount paid after 90 days cannot be accepted under the Scheme, hence the balance amount will have to be refunded back to the assessee - we direct the respondent to refund the said sum of Rs. 2,66,000 which was paid by the assessee to the respondent beyond the period of 90 days under the Scheme, subject to the petitioner producing necessary proof of such payments. The aforesaid amount shall be refunded within a period of 8 weeks from today and if the respondent fails to do so the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum after the period of 8 weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to constitutional validity of section 67 of the Scheme, refund of amounts paid beyond the specified period, interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in Hemalata Gargya v. CIT regarding non-compliance with payment provisions.

Constitutional Validity of Section 67:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of section 67 of the Scheme, alleging it to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought a certificate under section 68(2) of the Scheme for the full amount declared or a refund of the amounts paid beyond the stipulated period. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Hemalata Gargya v. CIT, which clarified the consequences of non-compliance with payment provisions under the Scheme. The court directed the respondent to refund the amount paid beyond the 90-day period, subject to proof of payment by the petitioner.

Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment:
The court analyzed the Supreme Court's decision in Hemalata Gargya v. CIT, emphasizing that non-compliance with payment timelines specified in section 67(1) of the Scheme results in the declaration being deemed never made under the Scheme. The court noted that any amount paid after 90 days cannot be accepted under the Scheme, as confirmed by the settlement officer. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 2,66,000 paid by the petitioner beyond the 90-day period, with a provision for interest if the refund is delayed.

Refund of Amounts Paid Beyond Specified Period:
The court directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 2,66,000 paid by the petitioner beyond the 90-day period under the Scheme. The refund was subject to the petitioner providing necessary proof of such payments. The court mandated the refund to be processed within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment, with the provision for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum if the respondent failed to comply within the specified timeframe. The court concluded the ruling by making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, with no order as to costs.