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 amounts paid as pre-deposit and tax paid through input credit were required to be adjusted while determining the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019. (ii) Whether the petitioner could be denied relief on the ground that the credit should have been claimed through ST-3 returns and that the scheme was time-specific.
Issue (i): Whether amounts paid as pre-deposit and tax paid through input credit were required to be adjusted while determining the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019.
Analysis: Section 124(2) mandates deduction of any amount paid as pre-deposit during appellate proceedings or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit while issuing the statement showing the amount payable. The circulars relied upon also clarify that tax paid through input credit in disputed matters is to be adjusted by the designated committee, and that deposits made after issuance of show cause notice but before adjudication may likewise be adjusted. On this basis, the claimed pre-deposit and other eligible credits could not be ignored while working out the liability under the scheme.
Conclusion: The adjustment of eligible pre-deposit and input credit was mandatory, and the contrary computation was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be denied relief on the ground that the credit should have been claimed through ST-3 returns and that the scheme was time-specific.
Analysis: The scheme was treated as a self-contained code, and the declaration form itself contained a column for pre-deposit. The Court therefore declined to apply general procedures for claiming credit outside the scheme. The objection based on the scheme being time-specific was addressed by the Board's clarification permitting manual processing where the High Court grants relief and the stated conditions are satisfied.
Conclusion: The petitioner could not be denied relief on those grounds.
Final Conclusion: The impugned statement was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the declaration under the scheme, with directions to grant discharge if the petitioner was otherwise eligible in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the settlement scheme, statutorily eligible pre-deposits and disputed tax paid through input credit must be given credit in computing the amount payable, and the designated committee cannot insist on extraneous procedural requirements inconsistent with the scheme itself.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
