Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (5) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion till the date of payment on March 30, 1998. It so happened that the interest paid was in deficit by Rs. 360. This, according to the petitioner, happened on account of the fact that though the petitioner had calculated the interest on the tax due for the period of three months at Rs. 6,519, by mistake the petitioner had paid only Rs. 6,159. The respondent by notice dated April 15, 1998, informed the petitioner that the interest remitted is less by Rs. 360. The petitioner immediately on receipt of the said communication remitted the sum of Rs. 360 and submitted a reply dated April 29,1998 (exhibit P2), explaining the circumstances under which the deficit occurred. The respondent, however, by communication dated May 1, 1998, treated the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax due cannot have the effect of nullifying the declaration. Counsel submits that the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of section 67(1) are provided in sub-section (2) itself. Shri George K. George, standing counsel (Government of India), (Taxes) on the other hand submits that section 67(1) is absolute in terms and unless the tax declared in the return together with the interest thereon is paid within three months from the date of filing the declaration section 67(2) will come into play and consequently the declaration will become invalid. Counsel also submitted that even though section 67(2) refers only to the tax element and there is no reference to the interest payable under section 67(1) the cumulative effect of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isions in their favour and contended that the language of section 67(2) makes it abundantly clear that the period specified was mandatory. Considering the rival contentions the Supreme Court observed as follows: "We are of the view that the submissions of the Revenue must be accepted. A plain reading of the provisions of the Scheme would show that the tax payable under the Scheme 'shall be paid' within the time specified is the general rule provided in section 66, namely, payment prior to the making of a declaration. The exception to this general rule has been carved out by section 67(1) which allows a declarant to file a declaration without paying the tax. This exception, however, is subject to two conditions, viz., (1) the payment of tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ils to pay the tax in respect of the voluntarily disclosed income before the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the declaration, the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under this Scheme." Section 67(1), it must be noted, provides that notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 66, the declarant may file a declaration without paying the tax under that section and the declarant may file the declaration and the declarant may pay the tax within three months from the date of filing of the declaration with simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period beginning from the date of filing the declaration and ending on the date of payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under section 67(1) in the case of non-payment of interest along with tax before the expiry of three months. A question may arise as to what would happen if the interest on the tax due as per the declaration is not paid at all as contemplated under section 67(1). I do not propose to dwell much on this aspect in this proceedings on the facts of this case. The petitioner, according to him, had paid the entire interest due on the tax along with the tax within the time stipulated under section 67(1) of the Scheme and it is only on account of a mistake occurred as pointed out earlier that there was a deficit of a small amount of Rs. 360 and that too was paid immediately on the respondent bringing it to the notice of the petitioner. It can be sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates