9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S AND CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL [ 2020 (6) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] where it was held that When we look into the Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme. Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019may be such that the benefit of exemption, may even be applicable to the amount of penalty imposed, in which event, the petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to a greater exemption if the amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning the penalty. This writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in turn in the relevant column it was stated that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was 0 . 3. In view of such inadvertent mistake by the petitioner made in the SVLDRS-1 form their claim for the benefit under the Scheme of 2019 stood rejected by the order dated 31.12.2019. By the said order it was stated that the reason for rejection was that the amount of penalty had not been stated in the SVLDRS-1 form which makes it an incorrect declaration. 4. The issue as to whether an inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form, has been decided by this Court in its judgment dated 04.05.2020 in WP(C)No.2149/2020. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted as below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same time an inadvertent mistake which may also creep in due to an oversight or because of a callous attitude of the person making the claim but the ultimate result of such mistake would not accrue a benefit which he otherwise would not have been entitled can be accepted to be a curable mistake. 8. In the instant case, the mistake made by the petitioner was that the penalty imposed was stated to be zero whereas it is already on record that the respondent authorities had imposed a penalty of ₹ 11,48,82,644.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). In our view the mistake made by the petitioner by not stating about the penalty imposed upon them in Form SVLDRS-1 cannot be said to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
