9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ines, it would be the erstwhile compounding guidelines which would apply. This since it is the stated case of the respondents that the 2019 Guidelines would have applied only to applications made or received after 17 June 2019. We allow the instant writ petition and call upon the respondents to compute the compounding charges liable to be paid by the writ petitioner in accordance with the 2014 Guidelines, treating the application to have been first made on 15 February 2018. Subject to the aforesaid computation exercise being completed and the petitioner depositing the compounding charges, the application may be processed further and disposed of in accordance with law. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first writ petitioner to show cause why prosecution be not launched consequent to its failure to file a return under Section 139(1) for the period AY 2011-12 to AY 2015-16. This was followed by an identical notice issued to the petitioner no.2 on 09 February 2018. 5. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned it is stated to have filed its response on 08 February 2018. The petitioner no.2 also responded to the notice of 09 February 2018 by furnishing a response on 15 February 2018. It is the case of the writ petitioners that along with the aforesaid response, they had duly submitted applications seeking compounding. This becomes manifest from the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition which are reproduced hereinbelow: 7. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was claimed as a condition precedent for accepting the prayer for compounding, was wholly arbitrary since the same had been computed in accordance with the 2019 Guidelines and more particularly paragraphs 12.1, 12.2 and 13.4.1 thereof. The petitioner asserted that in terms of the 2014 Guidelines which would apply the amount of compounding fee could not have exceeded INR 2.24 lakhs. The petitioner is also stated to have raised this objection in terms of a letter which came to be submitted for the consideration of the respondents. However, those objections ultimately came to be disposed of in terms of a communication dated 20 October 2022. 9. As we peruse the aforesaid order it becomes apparent that the respondents have proceeded on the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
