TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated April 11, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ("the ACCT", for short), whereby the ACCT has imposed penalty under section 72(1), to a tune of Rs. 2,77,080 on the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are, that the petitioner, M/s. Skill Tech Engineers and Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-samadhana Scheme of 2017" should be given to him and the penalty proceeding should be dropped against him. However, notwithstanding the request made by the petitioner, by order dated April 11, 2017, respondent No. 3 has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,77,080 on the petitioner. 4. On April 28, 2017, Canara Bank informed the petitioner that they have received a notice from the Commercial Tax Depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017" in order to argue that the said Scheme does deal with the "arrears of penalty and interest" as mentioned in clause 1.2 of the Scheme. Moreover, according to clause 2.3, the assessee is required to merely pay 10 per cent. of the "arrears of penalty and interest", and the remaining 90 per cent. shall be waived under the Scheme. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per cent. of the penalty. However, he submits that, according to the Scheme, if any case is pending before the court, filed by the assessee, the assessee is required to withdraw the said case. Since the present case is pending before this court, the benefit of the Scheme cannot be given to the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Clause 1.2 of the Scheme is c....