TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 protected the petitioner from prosecution and justified discharge or quashing of the criminal proceedings, and whether the materials relied on by the petitioner could be considered at the stage of discharge.
Analysis: The Scheme under the Finance Act, 1998 granted immunity only in respect of matters covered by the declaration under section 88 and only against prosecution for offences under direct or indirect tax enactments. The statutory bar in section 95 was held inapplicable because the prosecution could not be treated as instituted merely on registration of the FIR, and the charge-sheet was filed after the declaration. The Court further distinguished the prior settlement case relied on by the petitioner, holding that the present allegations concerned false representations, fabricated documents, and misuse of the foreign inward remittance certificate, which were not shown to be confined solely to the tax arrear settlement or to identical allegations of customs duty evasion. The question whether the prosecution was founded only on material covered by the declaration was therefore treated as a matter for trial rather than a ground for discharge or quash.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge or quashing on the basis of the Scheme, and the criminal revision petition and criminal original petition were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
