1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Kerala High Court Upholds Petitions Over Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme</h1> The High Court of Kerala allowed the original petitions, setting aside the rejection of the petitioners' claims under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 for tax disputes.2. Validity of rejection of petitioners' claims under the scheme.3. Applicability of legal precedents in determining the scheme's requirements.4. Compliance with statutory provisions under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998.Analysis:The High Court of Kerala addressed the issues involving the interpretation and application of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 in two original petitions. The petitioners had filed revision petitions for disputed amounts before the scheme's deadline and subsequently submitted declarations under the scheme. However, the respondent dismissed the revision petitions before considering the declarations, leading to rejection of the petitioners' claims under the scheme. The petitioners contended that the pendency of revisions at the time of declaration, not consideration, was crucial as per legal precedents. The court relied on established decisions to emphasize that the relevant point for the scheme's applicability was the pendency of revisions at the time of declaration. As the revisions were pending when the declarations were made, the subsequent dismissal of revisions did not justify rejecting the petitioners' claims.Furthermore, the court highlighted Section 92 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, which restricted appellate authorities from deciding issues covered by the scheme. Since the petitioners had submitted declarations before the scheme's deadline, the respondent was obligated to consider the declarations before proceeding with revisions. The court deemed the respondent's actions as contrary to the law, leading to the invalidity of the orders rejecting the petitioners' claims. Consequently, the court remanded both matters to the respondent for a fresh review of the petitioners' declarations in accordance with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The respondent was instructed to expedite the process and provide a decision within three months from the judgment's receipt. Depending on the outcome of the declaration review, the revision petitions were to be disposed of accordingly, ensuring compliance with the scheme and statutory provisions.In conclusion, the court allowed the original petitions, setting aside the orders rejecting the petitioners' claims and directing a reevaluation of the declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal precedents, statutory provisions, and the correct interpretation of the scheme's requirements in resolving tax disputes effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
