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 affirms tax authority's power to correct errors post-deadline, safeguarding public funds.</h1> <h3>Dinesh Kalway S/O Ratnakar Rao Kalway Versus The Union Of India, Designated Committee Under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme,</h3> Dinesh Kalway S/O Ratnakar Rao Kalway Versus The Union Of India, Designated Committee Under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, - TMI Issues:The judgment deals with the question of whether the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 can modify a statement declaring a reduced amount of tax payable after the expiry of 30 days of its issuance due to an arithmetical/clerical mistake.Factual Background:The petitioner's case was treated as under 'litigation' under the SVLDRS Scheme, with the reduced amount payable being Rs.8,97,037.20. The petitioner paid this amount on 15.02.2020. However, the Designated Committee later issued a rectified statement increasing the tax dues to Rs.53,43,018/- and the reduced amount payable to Rs.26,71,509/-, which the petitioner did not pay, leading to the initiation of recovery proceedings.Legal Principles Applied:The judgment emphasizes that in cases involving concessions or relaxations in taxing statutes, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the Revenue to ensure the principal object of collecting revenue for the State is not compromised. The court cites previous decisions to support the strict interpretation of exemption provisions in favor of the Revenue.Interpretation of Time Limits:The judgment clarifies that when a statutory provision sets a time limit without specifying the consequences of non-compliance, such provisions are not necessarily mandatory. It highlights that substantial compliance may be sufficient, depending on the context and purpose of the provision.Decision and Rationale:The court concludes that the Designated Committee's review of the statement was justified in the public interest to prevent loss to the public exchequer. The oversight in including CENVAT CREDIT in the tax dues would have resulted in a significant loss to the Revenue if not corrected. The court finds the reason for the delayed review to be reasonable and not arbitrary, thus upholding the Revenue's action and dismissing the petition.Judgment Outcome:The petition is dismissed as lacking substance, with no costs imposed on the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
