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>Supreme Court: Declarations under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme valid; no interest until amount determined</h1> <h3>Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax</h3> Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax - [2005] 277 ITR 449 (SC) Issues:- Additional direction to pay interest under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998- Competency of declarations filed by the appellant under the Scheme- Challenge to the decision of the Gujarat High Court- Provision for charging interest under the Scheme- Interpretation of the Scheme regarding determination of amount payable- Liability of the appellant to pay interest on the amount payableAnalysis:The Supreme Court judgment pertains to appeals against an additional direction issued by the Gujarat High Court under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, holding the appellant liable to pay interest on tax arrears. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court against the rejection of declarations made under the Scheme. The High Court found the declarations competent as revision applications were pending on the filing date. The Department challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the declarations were competent under the Scheme and directed the designated authority (DA) to determine the amount payable. However, the appellant contested the additional direction to pay interest, arguing that the Scheme lacked provisions for interest in cases where the DA wrongly rejected declarations. The appellant claimed they should not pay interest when the DA erred in rejecting the declarations, as the amount payable was not ascertainable due to the DA's mistake.The Court examined the Scheme, emphasizing that the DA had to assess tax arrears, disputed amounts, and the amount payable within 60 days of receiving the declaration. Until this assessment was complete, the appellant's liability to pay only arose after the amount payable was determined under section 90. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant should not be liable to pay interest when the Department wrongly rejected the declarations under section 88.In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court set aside the additional direction for the appellant to pay interest. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, providing relief to the appellant based on the interpretation of the Scheme's provisions and the circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 