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>High Court grants writ petition challenging Sabkha Vishwas Scheme rejection, stresses tax law consistency, cut-off date importance.</h1> <h3>M/s. Narayana Associates, Prop: M. Narayana Moorthy Versus The Designated Committee, SVLDRS Scheme, GST & Central Excise, Chennai</h3> M/s. Narayana Associates, Prop: M. Narayana Moorthy Versus The Designated Committee, SVLDRS Scheme, GST & Central Excise, Chennai - TMI Issues:The rejection of the petitioner's application under Sabkha Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and the interpretation of Section 125 of the Scheme regarding eligibility criteria.Issue 1: Rejection of Application under the SchemeThe petitioner, a sole proprietary registered under the category of 'management consultant service', challenged the rejection of their application under the Sabkha Vishwas Scheme. The rejection was based on an allegation of a mis-match between income tax and service tax returns for the year 2016, which the respondent cited as grounds for the petitioner's ineligibility under Section 125(f) of the Scheme. The petitioner argued that the enquiry conducted on 10.10.2019, which led to the rejection, took place after the cut-off date of 30.06.2019 specified in the Scheme. The petitioner relied on previous decisions of the Bombay High Court to support their claim that any enquiry, investigation, or audit conducted after 30.06.2019 should not render an assessee ineligible under the Scheme.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 125 of the SchemeThe interpretation of Section 125 of the Scheme, specifically clause (f), was a key point of contention. The petitioner argued that the clause should be read in conjunction with the cut-off date of 30.06.2019 mentioned in other sections of the Scheme. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the absence of this date in Section 125(f) indicated that it should be interpreted as stated without any additional conditions. The respondent highlighted the need for uniformity in approach regarding the interpretation of the Scheme across different cases.Key Judgments and Findings:The High Court examined previous decisions related to similar issues and emphasized the importance of consistency in the revenue department's interpretation of tax laws. The Court noted that the Scheme itself referenced the date 30.06.2019 for various purposes, indicating its significance as a cut-off date. The Court also considered written instructions from the office of the Commissioner, which confirmed the acceptance of a similar order by the Bombay Commissionerate. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the issuance of a discharge certificate to the petitioner within two weeks.This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues, arguments, and key findings in the legal judgment without disclosing any specific party names.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
