TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court interprets industrial policy schemes; appellant bound by chosen scheme despite assessing authority error.</h1> The Supreme Court analyzed a case involving the interpretation of industrial policy schemes - the 1987 Scheme and the 1989 Scheme. The appellant opted for ... Direction should be issued that the appellant is not liable to pay any interest or any penalty - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We do not see as to how in a case of this nature such a direction can be issued. Appellant herein knew the actual state of affairs. It at all material times was aware of the extent of its entitlement thereto, which was confined to the benefits under the 1989 Scheme. However, despite such knowledge if it had not recovered any tax, it must thank itself therefor. Issues:1. Interpretation of industrial policy schemes - 1987 Scheme and 1989 Scheme.2. Eligibility for tax exemption under the schemes.3. Grant of eligibility certificate and its implications.4. Mistake by assessing authority in referring to the wrong scheme.5. Applicability of the chosen scheme and estoppel principles.6. Liability for interest and penalty on tax amount.7. Comparison with relevant legal precedents.The Supreme Court analyzed the case involving the interpretation of the industrial policy schemes - the 1987 Scheme and the 1989 Scheme. The 1989 Scheme provided a retrospective operation, allowing entrepreneurs to choose between the two schemes. The appellant opted for the 1989 Scheme, leading to the grant of an eligibility certificate limiting tax exemption to 75%. Despite a mistake by the assessing authority in referring to the 1987 Scheme, the appellant was not entitled to benefits beyond what was specified under the 1989 Scheme. The court emphasized that the appellant had consciously chosen the 1989 Scheme and could not now claim benefits under the 1987 Scheme based on later perceptions of its advantages.The court scrutinized the process of grant of the eligibility certificate and its implications. The certificate was granted in 1996 explicitly applying the 1989 Scheme, despite a reference to both schemes in the initial sanction. The court held that the appellant's awareness of the scheme opted for and its entitlement under it were crucial. The mistake by the assessing authority did not alter the appellant's obligations under the chosen scheme, and rectification was deemed permissible.Regarding the liability for interest and penalty on the tax amount, the court dismissed the appellant's plea for exemption. The appellant was held accountable for not collecting taxes from customers despite being aware of its entitlement under the 1989 Scheme. The court rejected the argument for a direction to waive interest or penalty, emphasizing that such claims required factual scrutiny in an appropriate proceeding.In analyzing relevant legal precedents, the court distinguished the present case from cases where directions were issued to waive penalties or interest. The court highlighted the appellant's volition in choosing the scheme and the lack of involvement by the respondent in altering the appellant's entitlement. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision against the appellant and ordering costs to be paid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
