AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AUNA M. BHATT) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned Asst. Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed challenging the order passed by respondents, wherein the applications of the petitioners under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 (Amnesty Scheme- 2019) for A.Y. 2011- 12 and A.Y. 2012-13, were not allowed in full and were only allowed in part. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to hear and decide the appeals afresh after taking into consideration all the evidence which the petitioners had produced in support of their contention that the 'C' forms in question were actually issued. 3. The details o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. Thereafter, the State introduced the Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019 (Amnesty Scheme-2019) on 6.12.2019. Since, the petitioner was eligible to avail benefits of the Scheme, it preferred an application dated 9.1.2020, opting for the same. Under the scheme the assessee is required to pay 50% of the tax dues, then balance 50% tax dues, the interest and the penalty amount would be completely waived. Pursuant to the application filed, an order dated 15.2.2020 was passed accepting the application of the petitioner under Amnesty Scheme-2019, in part raising the demand of Rs. 7,39,88,0281/-. (c) The petitioner preferred rectification application on the ground that the evidence in the form of certificate dated 17.02.2020 was not considered an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If the evidence is considered in the correct perspective, then the tax payable would be @ 2%. The petitioner is erroneously fastened with the liability by raising demand ignoring 'C' forms issued by the tax authorities of Tamil Nadu. (iii) "TINXSYS" is not the conclusive proof for verification of 'C' forms or even otherwise the authorities failed to consider that the tax authority of Tamil Nadu had issued certificate dated 17.2.2020 for interstate sales. The certificate dated 17.2.2020 issued by the Commercial Tax Department of Tamil Nadu indicates the date of issue, which is prior to the decision of the authority dated 15.2.2020. Even the 'C' forms have been issued prior to the filing of application under Amnesty Scheme which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 'C' forms were allowed to the extent of Rs. 1,45,87,986/- (without tax) and disallowed to the extent of Rs. 1,85,82,948/- (without tax). Further, the time to upload 'C' Forms on 'TINSXYS' website was till 10.02.2020 and the authority is to pass an order on or before 15.2.2020. Therefore, the subsequent certificate dated 17.2.2020, by the Tamil Nadu State on which heavy reliance placed is of no consequence. Thus, the order dated 15.02.2020 was passed as per the provisions of the Scheme- 2019. Further, the respondent has rightly rejected the rectification by an order dated 29.5.2020. She, therefore, submitted that no interference of this Court is required. 9. Having considered the above, following facts have been noticed. (a) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C' Form after 10.01.2020. IV. Clause 5.1(4) of the Scheme prescribes that the genuineness of such 'C' Forms would be verified on the "TINXSYS" Website or on the basis of the available report provided by the State issuing such 'C' Form. V. Clause 5.1(5) of the Scheme prescribes that the Appellate Authority has to issue an order latest by 15.02.2020. (d) Thus, from the provisions of the scheme particularly, Clause 5.1.3, it is clear that the dealer is to give the details in relation to 'C' forms by 10.1.2020 before the appellate authority and the dealer would not be permitted to submit any 'C' forms after 10.1.2020. Clause 5.1.4, provides that the 'C' forms will be verified from the "TINXSYS" web....