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: Whether the petitioner's tax dues under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 were rightly treated as "amount in arrears" instead of "litigation", after the appeal filed post cut-off date was withdrawn pursuant to the Scheme.
Analysis: The Scheme distinguished between cases involving pending disputed liability and cases where the duty had attained finality. The statutory definitions of "tax dues" and "amount in arrears" under the Scheme, read with the relief provision, showed that once an appeal filed after the cut-off date was withdrawn and no further appeal was to be pursued, the underlying demand ceased to be in litigation and became recoverable as arrears. The departmental circular and the FAQ expressly clarified that such cases were not eligible under the litigation category but could be considered under the arrears category upon withdrawal of the appeal and filing of the requisite undertaking. The petitioner had voluntarily opted for the Scheme, withdrew its appeal, accepted the computation, and paid the amount without protest; it was therefore precluded from later challenging the category in which the declaration was processed.
Conclusion: The classification of the petitioner's declaration under the arrears category was upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, as the demand had attained finality after withdrawal of the appeal and the petitioner was not entitled to treatment under the litigation category.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee withdraws an appeal filed after the cut-off date in order to avail the benefit of the Scheme, the underlying duty demand attains finality and is to be treated as "amount in arrears" rather than as a pending litigation for the purpose of scheme relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
