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

2018 (7) TMI 1569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... especially when, Rule 3(5) provides for 10 days time to be granted for making good the deficit, if any. Apart from that, while computing the amount payable by the petitioner for being entitled to pursue the application under the Settlement Act, the authority should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner, especially when, decision was taken after three years, after the application was lodged - In the light of the procedural flaw committed by the first respondent in considering the application filed by the petitioner for settlement, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceedings is under the Settlement Act and if the applications have to be rejected on such technical grounds, the purpose of enacting a Settlement Act would stand defeated. Secondly, the petitioner filed application for settlement under the Act by their application in Form I, dated 30.12.2011. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.09.2014, after three years. The first respondent has not explained as to why there has been a delay of three years for consideration of the application. Therefore, when the first respondent is guilty of delay and laches, they cannot be permitted to contend that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. 4. The Assessing Officer of the petitioner, the second respondent has given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of tax assessed on best of judgment, it is 40% of arrears of tax along with interest at 7.5%; where it relates to arrears of tax including any arrears of tax approved due to non-filing of declaration forms it is the same of 40% of the arrears of tax pending collection along with interest at 7.5%; where it relates to arrears of tax admitted as tax due, the entire arrears of tax along with interest at 7.5%; and where it relates to arrears of penalty or interest or both, 10% of penalty and 25% of interest. It is further submitted by the petitioner that clause (b) of Section 7(1) of the Settlement Act, would be attracted to the petitioner's case and the arrears of tax as a result of assessment order, confirming the differential tax demand i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court considered as to whether the decision making process as adopted by the said Joint Commissioner was proper and in consonance with the provision of the Settlement Act and held as follows:- that the applications filed by the dealer were kept pending for two years and the delay remained unexplained. The applications should be verified by the designated authority under section 6(1), with regard to the correctness of the particulars furnished in the applications filed under Section 5 with reference to all relevant records and only thereafter could a determination of the amount payable at the rates specified in section 7 be arrived at. There was serious procedural flaw in the manner in which the dealer's applications were considered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ially when, Rule 3(5) provides for 10 days time to be granted for making good the deficit, if any. Apart from that, while computing the amount payable by the petitioner for being entitled to pursue the application under the Settlement Act, the authority should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner, especially when, decision was taken after three years, after the application was lodged. 9. The learned Government Advocate argued that the petitioner by letter dated 30.11.2012, accepted that they are willing to pay differential amount, which shows that they admitted their lapse. However, I find from the letter, there is no candid admission of any lapse, but such agreement to pay the differential amount is an alternate submission, as .....

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