9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that were beyond control of the Petitioners. In fact, the country was intermittently in lockdown on account of the COVID-19 pandemic from 25th March, 2020. In recognition of these difficulties as pointed out hereinabove, the Scheme was amended several times to extend the deadline for payment. Moreover, death of the Managing Director of the companies was an extraordinary and exceptional event which would render non-grant of relief on equitable consideration irrational. Though this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the Departmental Authorities, yet this Court under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice. The Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ 1995 (11) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT] has held It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice . Consequently, the power of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishwas Act, 2020 ( VSV Act ). ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that Petitioners had filed Form 1 as well as Form 2 within the time stipulated as per the provisions of VSV Act on 04th March, 2021 and Form No. 3 was issued to Petitioners on 07th May, 2021 and 22nd June, 2021. He stated that the Petitioner Companies were unable to pay the disputed amount as determined by Respondents in Form 3 prior to the last date, namely, 31st October, 2021 due to death of a Director of the companies, who was looking after the taxation and other affairs on 20th July, 2021. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that the delay in payment was not intentional and the Petitioners always intended to settle the dispute with the Income tax department and avail the benefit of VSV Act. He contended that not condoning the delay in payment would be against the very object and purpose of the Scheme as the object of the scheme is to reduce litigation and collect revenue. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the Rajasthan High Court in similar facts in Agroha Electronics Through its Proprietor Vs. Union of India Through Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, by order, determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of this Act and grant a certificate to the declarant containing particulars of the tax arrear and the amount payable after such determination, in such form as may be prescribed. (2) The declarant shall pay the amount determined under sub-section (1) within fifteen days of the date of receipt of the certificate and intimate the details of such payment to the designated authority in the prescribed form and thereupon the designated authority shall pass an order stating that the declarant has paid the amount. 6. He submitted that the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. and Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 510 while dealing with a pari materia provision, namely, Section 67(2) of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 ( VDI Scheme ), has held as under:- 9. The use of the word shall in a statute, ordinarily speaking, means that the statutory provision is mandatory. It is construed as such unless there is something in the context in which the word is used which would justify a departure from this meaning. There is nothing in the language of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Scheme does not form part of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at all . 10. He lastly submitted that in an ordinary situation, the provisions of law are to be mandatorily applied and relief on equitable consideration cannot be granted. However, in extraordinary and exceptional situation like death and Covid, the non-grant of relief on equitable consideration would be irrational. COURT S REASONING IN RECOGNITION OF INTERMITTENT LOCKDOWN ON ACCOUNT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC THE SCHEME WAS AMENDED SEVERAL TIMES TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT. MOREOVER, DEATH OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANIES WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the timeline to pay under the VSV was not mandatory as the last date stipulated under the VSV Act (3 of 2020) was extended by virtue of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. A tabular chart showing the extension of the deadlines to pay under the VSV Scheme is reproduced hereinbelow:- CHART FOR VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME EXTENSIONS S.No. Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LEGISLATION WHOSE PROVISIONS MUST BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. 13. Further, the reliance by the Respondents on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya (supra) is misconceived on facts and untenable in law as in the said case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (for short VDI Scheme ) which permitted declarant-assessee: a. to disclose income chargeable to tax for which no return of income had been filed by the assessee; b. to disclose the income chargeable to tax where the return of income had been filed by the assessee but, that income had not been disclosed in the return; c. to disclose the income chargeable to tax where the return of income had been filed without disclosing the full and true material facts necessary for the assessment of that income. 14. Consequently, the VDI Scheme provided a one-time opportunity to the assessees to declare the undisclosed income which was concealed by the assessees and at the same time, provided them with immunity from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Act for not voluntarily disclosing the income chargeable to tax. Hence, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as Covid wherein the organisation of the Petitioners were affected due to death of a Director and that too when the Petitioners in no manner derived any benefit because of delay. THOUGH RESPONDENTS HAVE NO POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PAYMENT, YET THIS COURT IN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION CAN PASS ANY ORDER NECESSARY TO REMEDY INJUSTICE. 18. Though this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the Departmental Authorities, yet this Court under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice. The Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice . 19. One of us (Manmohan, J) in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 4797 , para 41 has held, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
