Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 when the duty demand had already attained finality and the writ petitions were filed to project a pending dispute.
Analysis: The benefit of the Scheme was available only where the tax arrears were genuinely in dispute and the proceeding had bona fide pendency. On the facts, the duty demand had been confirmed through the appellate chain and by the Supreme Court, and the later writ petition challenging the recovery notice did not keep the merits or quantum of duty demand in dispute. A writ filed after final determination, without full disclosure of the earlier proceedings, could not be treated as a legitimate pending dispute for availing the Scheme.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and the claim failed against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be an impermissible attempt to create artificial pendency after final adjudication of the duty liability, and the challenge to denial of Scheme benefits failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 cannot be claimed where the tax liability has attained finality and the later proceeding is instituted only to create an artificial or non-bona fide pendency.