Jurisdictional Issue in Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court Allows Revenue to Issue Fresh Notice

The Supreme Court held that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice under Clause 8 of the Amnesty Scheme. Despite the expiration of the limitation period, the court allowed the Revenue to issue a fresh notice due to the Assessee's delayed challenge on the jurisdictional issue. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the Revenue was granted the opportunity to proceed with a new notice if deemed necessary.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Designated Authority under Clause 8 of the Amnesty Scheme.
2. Validity of fresh notice issuance under Clause 8 after the limitation period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Designated Authority under Clause 8 of the Amnesty Scheme:

The primary contention revolves around whether the Designated Authority, specifically the Additional Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice under Clause 8 of the Amnesty Scheme. Clause 8 explicitly vests this power in the Commissioner to issue such notices for reopening cases where the declaration is suspected to be false. The court analyzed the Government Order dated 30th April 2014, which the Revenue cited as delegating this power to the Designated Authority. The court concluded that the Government Order only empowered the Additional Commissioner to hear and decide applications under Clause 4 and did not delegate the power under Clause 8. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice, affirming the High Court's decision on this matter.

2. Validity of Fresh Notice Issuance under Clause 8 after the Limitation Period:

The second issue pertains to whether a fresh show-cause notice could be issued by the Commissioner after the limitation period prescribed in Clause 8(3) had expired. The declarations were made on 18th and 28th February 2014, and the show-cause notice was issued on 16th January 2015. The High Court ruled that since the limitation period had expired, no fresh notice could be issued. However, the Supreme Court considered the conduct of the Assessee, noting that the jurisdictional issue was not raised during the adjudication process, which could have allowed the Commissioner to correct the error within the limitation period. Citing the principle that a party should not benefit from its own wrong, the court held that the Assessee's failure to timely contest the jurisdictional issue was not bona fide. Consequently, the court exercised its powers under Article 226 to permit the Revenue to issue a fresh notice if it so desired, thereby setting aside the High Court's order.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the Additional Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice under Clause 8. However, the court permitted the Revenue to issue a fresh notice under Clause 8, despite the lapse of the limitation period, due to the Assessee's delayed challenge to the jurisdiction. The High Court's order was set aside, and directions were issued to enable the Revenue to proceed afresh if advised.

---