TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has been unjustly and illegally deprived the benefit of the Scheme though the petitioner had fully complied with the necessary requirements under the Scheme for availing of the relief. The brief facts are that the petitioner had suffered penalties for the years 1995-96--Rs. 3 lakhs, 1996-97--Rs. 75,000 and 1997-98--Rs. 3 lakhs. In the appeal before the first appellate authority, the petitioner was able to get such penalties reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 1 lakh, respectively. The petitioner had pursued his efforts for further reduction by filing second appeals before the Tribunal. Such appeals were filed on September 7, 2000. The petitioner attempted to seek an interim order to stay recovery of the amount pending appeals bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as payments made in excess of specified amount, i.e., if the amount had already been paid even before the Scheme came into operation, while the amount is to be adjusted to the Government and the Scheme should be made applicable in respect of the balance amount payable, i.e., 50 per cent of the subject-matter of the appeal which has been paid by the petitioner can be retained by the Government and in respect of the balance of Rs. 1,05,000, the petitioner was required to comply by depositing 10 per cent of this towards penalty and 10 per cent on the interest payable on the same and only then the petitioner can avail the benefit of the Scheme. The authority took the view that the petitioner not having complied with this condition, petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat instead of condition for payment of 10 per cent of penalty and 10 per cent of interest, it gets extended up to to the amount that had already been paid. It is on such basis learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was very much entitled to avail the benefit under the "Kara Samadhan Scheme" and the authorities failed in refusing the benefit under the Scheme and the endorsement is bad in law and deserves to be quashed with suitable directions to the respondent. The respondents have filed statement of objections. The submission of Smt Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, is that condition No. 4 of the Scheme cannot be read in isolation. It should be read in conjunction with condition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect-matter of the appeal and 10 per cent of the interest payable on that amount is paid. If the appellant should have paid the amounts after December 31, 2003 requirement of payment towards interest gets extended up to 50 per cent, while the requirement of payment on deposit is up to 10 per cent in respect of the appeal to that of the petitioner filed before December 31, 2003. Under condition No. 7, such amount is sought to be extended up to the amount that had already been paid or deposited, i.e., that requirement of 10 per cent deposit gets extended in case of persons like the petitioner up to the amount that had been deposited. In the present case, it extends up to the amount of Rs. 1,05,000 that the petitioner had paid during the pend....