Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court quashes Tribunal orders, grants Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme immunity to co-noticees. Writ petition allowed.</h1> <h3>OM PRAKASH GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> OM PRAKASH GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 150 (All.) Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the order dated 13-8-2001.2. Direction to restrain from realizing the penalty of Rs. 5 lacs on each petitioner.3. Direction to grant the benefit of waiver of penalty under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) to the petitioners.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the Order Dated 13-8-2001:The petitioners contested the order dated 13-8-2001, passed by the Tribunal, which rejected their application for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal had previously upheld the penalties imposed on the petitioners by the adjudicating authority. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order was inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998, which should have granted them immunity from penalties as co-noticees of the firm, M/s. Ashoka Boot Factory, which had settled its dues under the scheme.2. Direction to Restrain from Realizing the Penalty of Rs. 5 Lacs on Each Petitioner:The petitioners were partners in M/s. Ashoka Boot Factory and were individually penalized Rs. 5 lacs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. They argued that once the firm settled its tax arrears under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, they, as co-noticees, should also be granted immunity from penalties. The Tribunal, however, had held that the scheme did not cover cases where penalties were adjudicated and imposed prior to the scheme's enactment.3. Direction to Grant the Benefit of Waiver of Penalty Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) to the Petitioners:The petitioners sought the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, which provided for the waiver of penalties upon the settlement of tax arrears. The scheme was designed to settle tax disputes by allowing taxpayers to pay a portion of the arrears in exchange for immunity from penalties and prosecution. The petitioners argued that the scheme's Removal of Difficulties Order, 1998, should extend this benefit to them as co-noticees, even though their penalties were adjudicated.The High Court referred to the Division Bench of Kerala High Court's interpretation of the scheme, which stated that the expression 'pending adjudication' should include cases where appeals against adjudication proceedings are pending. This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others v. Onkar S. Kanwar & Others, which confirmed that the benefit of the scheme should extend to all co-noticees, regardless of whether the penalties were adjudicated or pending in appeal.Conclusion:In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998. The court quashed the Tribunal's orders dated 13-8-2001 and 17-11-1999, and declared that the petitioners were not liable for the penalties imposed on them. The writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioners immunity from the penalties as co-noticees of the firm, which had settled its tax arrears under the scheme.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found