2016 (10) TMI 774

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 271(1)(c) of the Act; and (b) the order dated 30th November, 1998 passed by the Designated Authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (Samadhan Scheme) rejecting the petitioner's application. 2. This petition was admitted on 29th September, 1999. However, interim relief was refused. 3. Today, at the final hearing, the petitioner is only pressing for relief in respect of the order dated 30th November, 1998 passed by the Designated Authority under Samadhan Scheme. The Finance No.2 Act, 1998, in Chapter IV thereof from Section 86 to Section 98 therein, introduced the Samadhan Scheme. 4. Briefly, the facts relevant to the challenge to the order dated 30th November, 1998 are as under : (a) Assessment order date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....return of Income and making a false statement of Income to the extent of Rs. 16.25 lakhs before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. (f) However, as the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been reduced by 50% by order dated 21st March, 1997, the petitioner filed an application for discharge before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On 19th June, 1997, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order discharging the petitioner and its partners from the prosecution in Case No. 178 of 1997. This on the basis that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was reduced / waived to the extent of 50% and in terms of Section 279(1A) of the Act the assessee could not be proceeded against for an offenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... final, for the reason that a Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Revenue before the High Court and the same was at the relevant time awaiting admission. In the above view, the Designated Authority rejected the petitioner's declaration made in terms of the Samadhan Scheme. 5. Before dealing with the submissions, it would be necessary to reproduce Section 95(1)(c) of the Samadhan Scheme and the relevant extract of Circular dated 7th October, 1998 as under : " Scheme not to apply in certain cases. (i) in respect of tax arrears under any direct tax enactment - (a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of declaration under Section 88 under a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged by a Criminal Court prior to its making an application for settlement under the Samadhan Scheme, the petitioner's application ought to have been entertained. Therefore, Section 95(1)(c) of the Samadhan Scheme will have no application. 7. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act are all bad in law. However, no submission in particular was made in respect of petitioner's grievances that the order dated 30th November, 1998 of the Designated Authority rejecting the petitioner's declaration is without jurisdiction. 8. We find merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. As clarified by the Circular dated 7th October, 1998 issued under Section ....