9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department passed consequential order on 21.09.2001, wherein it has been stated that there is a reduction in the demand of ₹ 2,97,627/-. That apart, the case also having been settled under the KVSS, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess amount paid as per the actual amount payable as per the revised demand pursuant to the order passed in the earlier Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner, viz., ₹ 76,292/-. However, the plea for interest stands rejected. - W. P. No. 14071 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. M. P. Senthil Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of declaration under Section 88 was declared as consisting of the tax of ₹ 626/- being the tax on income of ₹ 39,000/- and interest of ₹ 1,72,978/-; the disputed income was declared as ₹ 1,89,000/- and the petitioner arrived at the amount payable under the scheme as ₹ 400/-. 5. The respondent issued an intimation under Section 90(1) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, in respect of the KVSS and determined the amount payable by the petitioner at ₹ 3,13,635 as against the amount of ₹ 400/- as per the statement of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner filed a petition dated 26.02.1999 for clarification to treat the sum of ₹ 78,000/- as income, which dispute has been remanded back to the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of that scheme. 6. It is not the person who took the matter in appeal, or the fact of that matter having been remanded without being finally decided, or the fact of the re-determination not having been made after the remand, that is relevant. What is relevant is that the determination of the tax had been made prior to 31.03.1998 in an order of assessment. The subsequent developments with regard to appeal, remand and re-determination will not affect the fact that the tax had been determined prior to 31.03.1998. The Writ Petitions are therefore, allowed. 7. The Revenue accepted the order and no appeal was preferred by them. Consequently, the respondent, by way of implementation of the order based on the Writ Petitions, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, it would still be construed as the payment effected by the petitioner without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition. If such interpretation is not given, then the very purpose of granting interim orders would stand defeated. 10. Under normal circumstances, the respondent would be justified in stating that no refund is payable on any amount paid pursuant to the declaration made under Section 88, in the light of the statutory embargo under Section 93. However, the facts of the present case are different and amount has been paid based on interim direction. The further fact which has to be taken note of is that the petitioner succeeded in the earlier petitions, which were allowed by order dated 23.02.2001 and the said order was im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
