9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Delay in making tax deposit under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, interpretation of scheme requirements, discretion of authorities in condoning delay, applicability of previous court decisions, power of Commissioner to condone delay, Division Bench decision on scheme compliance, refund of deposited money. Analysis: The judgment deals with a case where the petitioner filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme but failed to pay the tax within the stipulated 90-day period. The petitioner cited financial difficulties as the reason for the delay in making the deposit, which was not accepted by the court. The court emphasized that the scheme provided immunity for interest and penalties subject to compliance with its terms, and the delay in payment could not be justified by financial constraints alone. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision for leniency in the strictness of the period of limitation, but the court distinguished the facts of that case and emphasized that leniency depended on the circumstances of each case. Another decision cited by the petitioner from the Punjab and Haryana High Court was deemed too broad and subsequently clarified in a later judgment that the Commissioner had no power to condone the delay without a proper explanation. The court highlighted cases where delays were condoned due to valid reasons such as a bank holiday or an accident preventing timely deposit. However, in the present case, the court found no justification for condoning the delay as the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for missing the payment deadline. The Division Bench upheld the special nature of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, emphasizing that compliance with its requirements was essential to claim benefits. While the court declined to interfere with the discretionary order of the single judge, it clarified that belated filers had no automatic right to have delays condoned, especially without a valid reason justifying such leniency. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the authorities were not obligated to accept the declaration due to non-compliance with the scheme requirements. However, it clarified that the Revenue could not retain the deposited money unless proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, allowing for a refund if no such proceedings were ongoing.
|
