Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the request to extend time under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 was liable to be interfered with, and whether recovery proceedings including attachment could be pursued despite pending quantification of interest and penalty.
Analysis: The Scheme was treated as a statutory scheme requiring compliance within the time fixed by it. Failure to remit the declared amount within that period did not confer any right to seek extension. On non-compliance, the authorities were entitled to take steps for recovery of tax dues, including interest and penalty, in accordance with law. Pending quantification of interest and penalty did not preclude the department from initiating appropriate garnishee action against available amounts.
Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of extension was not sustainable, and the recovery action was not found to be illegal. The petitioner was not entitled to substantive relief.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to quantify the amount due and raise a demand within the stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory compliance scheme must be adhered to within the prescribed time, and on default the revenue authorities may proceed with lawful recovery measures even if interest and penalty are yet to be quantified.