TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the petitioner could be granted time to discharge the liability under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in instalments or with further time in the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the show cause notices could be sustained when issued without pre-consultation notice as contemplated by the departmental circular.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be granted time to discharge the liability under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in instalments or with further time in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The Scheme was intended to bring quietus to legacy disputes and the Court took note of the extraordinary disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the extension of limitation periods by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's asserted financial hardship was supported by outstanding receivables from government entities, and the record showed that the payment window under the Scheme had itself been extended. In these circumstances, the Court held that the request for further time to make payment deserved sympathetic consideration.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the petitioner was permitted to make payment under the Scheme within the time granted by the order.
Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notices could be sustained when issued without pre-consultation notice as contemplated by the departmental circular.
Analysis: The Board's master circular made pre-show-cause notice consultation mandatory in cases involving demands above the prescribed monetary threshold, and such circulars bind the departmental authorities so long as they are not inconsistent with the statute. The notices in question were issued without adhering to that mandatory pre-consultation requirement. The Court treated this lapse as sufficient to vitiate the notices, independently of the merits of the underlying demand.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the show cause notices were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the petitioner was granted relief to make payment under the Scheme, and the impugned notices were set aside without prejudice to the respondents' rights in accordance with law if the petitioner defaulted or failed on merits under the Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a departmental circular makes pre-show-cause consultation mandatory, failure to follow that requirement vitiates the resulting notice; and in appropriate circumstances, the Court may grant equitable relief to enable a bona fide declarant to avail a settlement scheme where extraordinary events have impeded timely compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
