https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12918 Paragraph 2 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998 was interpreted as limited to co-noticees whose proceedings were still at the demand notice or show-cause notice stage, and it did not extend settlement benefits to co-noticees whose penalty had already been adjudicated and was in appeal. The court also held that this distinction was not discriminatory under Article 14 because co-noticees at the notice stage and those in appellate proceedings constituted different classes with a rational nexus to the Scheme's object of speedy revenue recovery and reduced litigation. The challenge to the scope and validity of paragraph 2 therefore failed. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2009 10:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12918 Paragraph 2 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998 was interpreted as limited to co-noticees whose proceedings were still at the demand notice or show-cause notice stage, and it did not extend settlement benefits to co-noticees whose penalty had already been adjudicated and was in appeal. The court also held that this distinction was not discriminatory under Article 14 because co-noticees at the notice stage and those in appellate proceedings constituted different classes with a rational nexus to the Scheme's object of speedy revenue recovery and reduced litigation. The challenge to the scope and validity of paragraph 2 therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12918