Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Court quashes orders, remits for reconsideration under SVLDR Scheme.</h1> <h3>SRINIVAS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS</h3> The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders dated December 30, 2019, and September 9, 2020. The matter was remitted back to the ... Rejection of benefit under the SVLDR Scheme - respondents had quantified the tax payable by the petitioner prior to June 30, 2019, not withstanding pendency of an enquiry or an investigation or audit on or before June 30, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The material on record in the instant case discloses that on September 12, 2018 itself, the respondent had quantified the amount payable by the petitioner as Rs. 99,00,000 out of which the petitioner had already paid Rs. 57,02,485 much prior to June 30, 2019, which was the cut-off date under the SVLDR Scheme and clarified by the circulars dated August 27, 2019 and December 12, 2019 issued by the respondent. This court has come to the conclusion that so long as the respondents had quantified the tax payable by the petitioner prior to June 30, 2019, not withstanding pendency of an enquiry or an investigation or audit on or before June 30, 2019, the petitioner-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme. In Nikitha Build Tech's case [2022 (11) TMI 1148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this court held since the petitioner has already made payment of the amount in respect of which, he had claimed the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme much prior to submitting form SVLDRS-1, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme and rejection of the same by the respondents by issuing the impugned communication is clearly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law as well as the provisions of the said Scheme and the same deserves to be quashed. In the peculiar/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and in the light of the judgments of this court, the respondents committed an error in not only passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for benefit under the SVLDR Scheme, but also erred in passing the impugned order and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme).2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme.3. Applicability of the judgments and circulars issued by the court and respondents.4. Bar of res judicata concerning the earlier petition filed by the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Rejection of the Petitioner's Application under the SVLDR SchemeThe petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated September 9, 2020, which rejected their application under the SVLDR Scheme. The respondents had previously issued notices and show-cause notices quantifying the service tax payable by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's declaration seeking benefits under the SVLDR Scheme and the payment of a significant portion of the demanded amount before the cut-off date (June 30, 2019), the respondents rejected the application. The court found that the rejection was erroneous and contrary to the SVLDR Scheme's provisions and relevant circulars.2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Benefits under the SVLDR SchemeThe petitioner contended that they were entitled to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme as the amount payable had been quantified by the respondents before the cut-off date. The court referred to previous judgments, including Bioneeds India (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax and Nikitha Build Tech (P) Limited v. Union of India, which established that the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme applies if the tax payable is quantified before June 30, 2019, even if an enquiry, investigation, or audit is pending. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme as the amount had been quantified and partially paid before the cut-off date.3. Applicability of the Judgments and Circulars Issued by the Court and RespondentsThe court referred to several judgments and circulars to support the petitioner's claim. The circular dated August 27, 2019, clarified that cases where the duty demand was quantified before June 30, 2019, are eligible under the SVLDR Scheme. The court emphasized that the petitioner's admission and quantification of the service tax payable before the cut-off date entitled them to the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme. The court also cited the judgments in Bioneeds India (P) Limited and Nikitha Build Tech (P) Limited to reinforce its decision.4. Bar of Res Judicata Concerning the Earlier Petition Filed by the PetitionerThe respondents argued that the petition was barred by res judicata due to the disposal of an earlier petition (W.P. No. 8051 of 2021). However, the court clarified that the earlier petition challenged a different order, and there was no determination of issues or questions in that case. Therefore, the bar of res judicata did not apply to the present petition.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders dated December 30, 2019, and September 9, 2020. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's application under the SVLDR Scheme, considering the relevant judgments, circulars, and observations made in the order. The court directed the respondents to provide a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner during the reconsideration process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found