TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., assisted by M/s.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 23.08.2022 issued by 5th respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 11.10.2022 and to review the case in terms of section 110 of the Finance Act 2013. 2. Heard Mr. S.Karunakar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.Nandhakumar, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by M/s.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents placed on record. 3. The petitioner is running a firm carrying out various civil construction work under works contract service.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in order to avoid interest. Even the petitioner was not able to pay along with interest on or before 31.12.2014. But the petitioner had paid the balance amount of Rs. 13,89,270/- on 21.02.2015 and was instructed to pay the interest for the belated amount. However, the Office of the Accountant General (Audit) directed the respondents to recover the interest for the entire tax liability of Rs. 57,89,270/-. In turn the respondents directed the petitioner to pay the interest for the entire tax liability of Rs. 57,89,270/-. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved. 5. The contention of the respondents is that once the declarant violated the conditions of the scheme he is not entitled to the benefits of the scheme. Hence the petitioner is bound to pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by him, such dues along with interest thereon shall be recovered under the provisions of Section 87 of the Chapter". The section states "fails to pay tax dues, either fully or in part, such dues along interest shall be recovered". The respondents interpret it "fully tax liability". This Court is of the considered opinion that on the comprehensive reading of the section would clearly indicate the phrase "such dues" would definitely mean the unpaid portion only. Since only the unpaid portion alone can be considered as "dues". The respondents are adding words which is not found in the section. If the interpretation of the respondents is taken, then the same would attract the principle of "Casus Omissus". Therefore, the section states interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king. It is also, further, stated thus : (pp. 618-19) "In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly the interpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act's passing, in law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters. Just as the US Constitution is regarded as 'a living Constitution', so an ongoing British Act is regarded as 'a living Act'. That today's construction involves the supposition that Parliament was catering long ago for a state of affairs that did not than exist is no argument again....