TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, as brought into force by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998 and that, therefore, the payment made by petitioner No. 1 on March 30, 1999, be accepted by the respondents and the necessary certificate be issued to petitioner No. 1 under section 90(2) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at annexure D. Show-cause notice dated April 5, 1995, was issued to petitioner No. 1 company, calling upon it to show cause as to why Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to make the payment of the said amount within 30 days from the date of the certificate/order (annexure B). Under section 90(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998, the declarant-assessee was bound to pay the amount of Rs. 5,06,940 determined by the designated authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order (annexure B) by the designated authority and intimate the fact of such payment to the designated authority along with the proof thereof. Thereupon the designated authority was required to issue the certificate of declaration. At this stage, we think it proper to reproduce both, sections 90(1) and 90(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998, which are as under: "90. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount and petitioner No. 1 declarant was supposed to make payment within 30 days of the passing of the order. The order was passed on February 19, 1999, therefore, 30 days period would be over on March 21, 1999, which was Sunday, therefore, petitioner No. 1 was supposed to pay on March 22, 1999, as per the bare reading of the provision of section 90(2) of the Act. However, learned counsel, Shri Rao, for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 company had received the order dated February 19, 1999 (annexure B), only on February 24, 1999, as stated in the reply-affidavit by the respondents. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 company was required to pay the said amount as determined by the designated authority on or before March 26, 1999. Inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000, was made by petitioner No. 1-company (annexure F) to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. The same also remained unreplied, therefore, the petitioner, at last, was obliged to approach this court by way of this petition in the month of April, 2000. Shri Rao for the petitioners submitted that as per the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the petitioner could have made the payment of the amount determined by the designated authority as per order (annexure B) on March 27, 1999, but on March 27, 1999 (Saturday) the bank remained closed due to strike, March 28,1999 was a Sunday and March 29,1999 was a public holiday, i.e., "Bakri Eid". Thus, on these two public holidays it could not deposit the amount, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... designated authority on March 22, 1999 or not. Even assuming for the sake of argument that 30 days period was to start from the date of receipt of the said order and the said impugned order dated February 19,1999, (annexure B) was received by petitioner No. 1-company on February 24, 1999, then the last day would be March 26, 1999. If the declarant had not availed of that benefit and paid the amount determined by the designated authority on or before March 26, 1999 then, in the absence of any provision of condoning delay in making payment late, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner. If there is a specific period of limitation provided for filing the suit and if the suit is not filed within a period o....