9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 57,16,022/-. Pursuant to which, a demand notice is stated to have been raised. The petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that for the purpose of availing benefit under the Scheme, the Scheme requires that the appeal is to be withdrawn and accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the Tribunal was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to avail benefit under the said Scheme.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 Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of rejection by the Authority is only on the ground of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue 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 further submitted that as the Bank Guarantee was in operation only till 07.07.2017 and not having been extended and in the absence of any order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 petitioner and accordingly, recovery of 70% of the demand from the petitioner's banker, ought not to be taken note of, while invoking Clause 2.4 is also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
