TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows petition challenging settlement rejection under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme; retrospective amendment moots constitutional challenge. Final certificate issued, recovery notices quashed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Time Packaging Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> M/s. Time Packaging Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 514 (Bom.) Issues:Challenge to rejection of application for settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998; Constitutional validity of Section 90(2) of the said Scheme.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Rejection of Application: The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the rejection of their application. They also prayed for striking down Section 90(2) of the Scheme, claiming it to be arbitrary and violative of the Constitution.2. Interpretation of Section 90(2): The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998, as applied by the designated officer. The provision required the declarant to pay the determined sum within 30 days of the passing of an order by the designated authority. The petitioners contended that the payment should be made within 30 days from the receipt of the order, not from the passing date.3. Precedent and Interpretation: The Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case was cited, where it was held that the period for taking action from the date of the decision should be construed as the date of receipt of the order. This interpretation was supported by a Supreme Court decision in a different context, emphasizing the practicality and effectiveness of availing remedies provided by the law.4. Retrospective Amendment: The Finance Act, 2000, retrospectively amended Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998, changing the wording to 'within 30 days from the receipt of the order passed by the designated authority.' This retrospective amendment rendered the petitioners' challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 90(2) moot.5. Final Decision: Considering the retrospective amendment, the court directed the designated authority to issue a final certificate under Section 90(2) of the Samadhan Scheme. Additionally, the recovery notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise were quashed and set aside, as the petitioners had complied with the revised timeline for payment.In conclusion, the petition was allowed in favor of the petitioners based on the interpretation of the amended Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998, and the subsequent compliance by the petitioners within the revised timeline.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
