9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 1999. Petition is dismissed. As the Petitioner is entitled to the voluntarily deposited amount of ₹ 7,64,630/with the Respondents. This payment/deposit was consequent to what has been recorded in the order dated 30 March 1999. Therefore, on the Petition furnishing evidence of deposit to the Respondent No. 1, the Revenue will refund the amount of ₹ 7,64,630/as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. - Writ Petition No. 859 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - M. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. B.M. Chatterjee, Senior Counsel, i/by S.V. Pikale Co., for the Petitioner ORDER 1. None appears for Respondents. This inspite of the fact that at the time of admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttle the dispute. This second declaration dated 29 January 1999 was rejected by the impugned order dated 19 February 1999 of Respondent No. 1 on the ground that there are no arrears and/or outstanding dues under the Act in respect of assessment year 1983-84 to 1987-88 on the date the declaration was filed i.e. 29 January 1999. 5. The Petition was admitted on 28 April 1989 at that time the Respondents had waived service. 6. By an order dated 30 March 1999, the Petitioner's application to the Court seeking interim reliefs so as to avail the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme was rejected. However, as the Petitioner was insistent upon depositing the amount payable, according to him, under Samadhan Scheme, the Court directed the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 10. The submissions made by the Petitioner has no factual basis in as much as no document/order, etc. in case relating to refund and demand has been cited in support. In fact the impugned order dated 19 February 1999 also does not proceed on the above basis. It would be appropriate that we reproduce the order dated 19 February 1999 passed by the Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Petitioner's declaration under the Samadhan Scheme, which reads as under: Kindly refer to the above. As per the provisions of section 88 of Finance [No. 2] Act, 1998 the provisions of KVSS Scheme are applicable when the declaration as prescribed is made in accordance with the provisions of section 89 in respect of a tax arrear determined on o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in writing will have no application in the instant case, as once the assessment is set aside the demand will get remitted. Clearly, we find that the Petitioner has barked up the wrong tree. 14. Thus, from the reading of the impugned order, the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 28 April 1999 and Affidavit in SurRejoinder dated 26 July 1999, it is clear that on the date of filing of second declaration i.e. 29 January 1999, there were no arrears of tax payable by the Petitioner to the Revenue. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 19 February 1999 rejecting the second declaration dated 29 January 1999. 15. In the above view, the Petition is dismissed. 16. However, the Petitioner is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
