TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 writ petition was admitted and pending so as to attract the benefit of Section 95 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
Analysis: The scheme contemplated a pending and admitted proceeding for availing its benefit. The relevant clarification under Section 96 required proof of admission, or where no formal admission procedure existed, proof of notice issued by the competent court. The Court examined the High Court rules on admission and rule nisi and held that issuance of notice must be preceded by application of mind on the merits or maintainability of the petition. On the facts, the interim order did not show such application of mind on the question of maintainability, and the later dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable reinforced that the petition was not shown to be admitted and pending within the meaning of the Scheme.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not treated as admitted and pending for purposes of Section 95, and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme.
Final Conclusion: Mere issuance of rule nisi or notice, without a conscious judicial decision to admit the writ petition, is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of an admitted and pending proceeding under the Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: For availing a settlement scheme that requires an admitted and pending proceeding, there must be a judicial application of mind leading to admission or issuance of notice in the legal sense; a procedural order that leaves maintainability open does not by itself establish admission and pendency.
TaxTMI 
