9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was extended for a period of one month, which is not relevant for the purposes of this case.) For becoming entitled to the benefits of the scheme, inter alia, the amount in dispute must be in arrears and an appeal or reference or writ petition in respect of the same must have been admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of the declaration. The petitioners in both original petitions had filed the revision petitions in respect of the amount in dispute for the three assessment years on August 31, 1998. They filed declaration under the scheme on October 14, 1998. It is admitted by both sides that the amount in dispute was in arrears as on the date of declaration. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a revision as on the date of filing the declaration and not as on the date of consideration of the declaration for benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme by the authority competent to pass orders under the scheme. In view of the abovesaid decisions, it is settled law that what is relevant for the purpose of the scheme is pendency of the revisions as on the date of declaration made by the petitioners under the scheme. Admittedly, the declarations were made on October 14, 1998, and the revisions were pending at that time, the same having been filed on August 27, 1998. That being so, the fact that the revisions were later dismissed on November 17, 1998, and the respondent who himself was the authority to pass orders under the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober 14, 1998, the respondent was not empowered to proceed with the revisions in respect of the disputed amounts and the respondent ought to have considered the declarations of the petitioners for benefits under the scheme, first. He having failed to do so both exhibits P4 and P5 orders (in both original petitions) are bad in law and liable to be set aside. I do so. Consequently the respondent is liable to reconsider the declarations of the petitioners in accordance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Therefore both the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration of the declarations filed by the petitioners on October 14, 1998, in accordance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, afresh. The respondent shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
