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

2023 (6) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Assessee has withdrawn its petition from the KAT and subsequently, filed an application under Karasamadhana Scheme and that there was recovery of arrears of Rs. 43,23,703/-. It is further observed that only after full recovery of arrears, the assessee has withdrawn the petition to obtain benefit under Karasamadhana Scheme and filed application requesting for refund of interest amount. The Authority in the impugned endorsement has rejected the application referring to the Circular No. 1/2018-19 dated 13.08.2018. It must be noticed that there is some ambiguity in the Endorsement and if the Endorsement is construed as having rejected the application only on the ground of Clause 2.4, which in substance has been referred to by placing relia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orsement dated 05.01.2019, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, whereby the respondent- Authority has rejected the application of the complainant seeking for benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme ('the Scheme' for short), while observing that the Circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru at Circular No. 1/2018-19 dated 13.08.2018 provides the Assessee shall not be eligible for refund of any amount that may become excess as a result of adjustment of penalty/interest paid by him at the time of filing an appeal . 2. Respondent No. 3 stated to have passed the reassessment order dated 15.12.2016 under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short), levying tax and interest of Rs. 57, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... waiver of penalty and interest subject to payment of tax, the petitioner had opted for relief under the said Scheme. 4. It is further submitted that for the purpose of availing benefit under the Scheme, the Scheme requires that the appeal is to be withdrawn and accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the Tribunal was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to avail benefit under the said Scheme. The petitioner submits that he was eligible for refund of Rs. 26,25,948/-, if benefit was extended under the Scheme and accordingly, he has pursued the application filed under the Scheme. It is submitted that the application has been rejected which has been assailed in the present petition. 5. The submission of Sri Joseph Pra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Endorsement at Annexure- A invoking in effect Clause 2.4 of the Scheme requires to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that as on the date of the Scheme coming into force i.e., on 04.08.2018, the entirety of the tax, penalty and interest having been recovered, Scheme is inapplicable. It is further contended that invocation of Clause 2.4 of the Scheme is infact correct and the endorsement does not call for interference. 9. It is further contended by Sri Hema Kumar, learned AGA that though the second appeal was filed on 16.09.2017, no steps were taken to reguralize the objection and obtain an order of stay and the matter was adjourned on several dates and stay was granted only on 23.07.2018. It is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement, there is no clarity as regards satisfaction of Clause 2.4 insofar as Clause 2.4 refers to the amount paid at the time of filing the appeal. In this case, the peculiar facts are that the petitioner has paid 30% of the amount due on 17.01.2013. If that were to be so, the question that requires adjudication by the Authority is whether a subsequent recovery from the banker of the petitioner after the appeal was taken on record and payment was made is an amount that could be taken note of. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically raised a contention that Clause 2.4 refers only to the amount paid at the time of filing the appeal and accordingly, the subsequent recovery cannot be an amount deemed to have been paid by 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

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates