TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me, 2019 (in short, 'Scheme'), which has come to be rejected on 13.02.2020 and is hence challenged by way of the present writ petition. 2. Though the petitioner has raised grounds relating to the violation of principles of natural justice, such grounds are not pursued in the writ petition. Instead, the substantial point raised relates to the ground of rejection itself which turns upon an interpretation of Section 125 of the Scheme as per which certain persons have been declared to be ineligible for availing the Scheme. Section 125 sets out eight categories of such applicants who are ineligible and it reads thus:- "125. Declaration under Scheme. - (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner to submit various particulars on the basis of an allegation that there was a mis-match between the income tax and service tax returns for the year 2016. It is this letter that is cited by the respondent to stand in the way of acceptance of petitioner's eligibility under the Scheme in terms of Section 125(f) which states that any assessee which has been subjected to enquiry or investigation or audit would not be eligible to make a declaration under the Scheme. 4. The petitioner would draw attention to the fact that in sub-clause 125 (e), which also refers to enquiry or investigation or audit, there is a requirement that the quantification of duty should have been done prior to 30.06.2019. Thus, she would submit that the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd discharge certificate had been issued. No appeals had been filed in the other two cases as the tax effect had been below the required threshold. 7. Thus, the revenue has accepted the position that Clause (f) of Section 125 should be read to contain the stipulation that the enquiry/investigation/audit should have been conducted prior to 30.06.2019 though such date does not figure in the said clause. With this, there is no necessity for any further discussion in the matter as the interpretation of the revenue in one case must be applied in respect of other matters involving identical issues, the Income-Tax Act, 1961 being a central enactment. 8. The judgments in the case of Union of India and others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and another....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the respondents that having not assailed the correctness of some of the orders passed by the Tribunal and a decision of the High Court of Karnataka, the revenue cannot be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and choose and challenge the orders passed in the cases before us, it would suffice to observe that such a proposition cannot be accepted as an absolute principle of law, although we find some substance in the stated grievance of the assessees before us, because such situations tend to give rise to allegations of malafides etc. Having said so, we are unable to hold that merely because in some cases revenue has not questioned the correctness of an order on the same issue, it would operate as a bar for the revenue to challenge t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. Thus, the Scheme has adopted, in several instances, the 30th of June 2019 as a watershed for various purposes, including determination of tax dues / arrears. 12. The argument of the respondent is that had it been the intention of legislature that 30.06.2019 be adopted for the purposes of Section 125(f), it would have so stipulated in that clause itself. This is certainly a possible argument. In cases involving the interpretation of a beneficial scheme/exemption notification, the accepted Rule is that the scheme be interpreted strictly in line with the avowed and stated intention thereof. Seen in the light, clause 125(f) of the scheme must be read as is, without the addition of the date, 30.06.2019. However, this is not to be, as the ....