TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 01 March 2021. The respondents have essentially taken the position that only in cases where revisions may have been pending on the specified date would the VSV Act be applicable. It is the correctness of this stand which is assailed before us. 2. When the writ petition was originally entertained, we had on 04 June 2021 passed a detailed order in the following terms:- "3. Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has, broadly, taken us through the record. 3.1. It appears that the petitioner had filed Forms 1 and 2, under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (in short "2020 Act") twice, i.e., on 10.03.2021 and 23.03.2021, however, both times, it was rejected. The first time, it was rejected was on 23.03.2021. The petitioner refiled Forms 1 and 2 on the same date, i.e., 23.03.2021, which stood rejected on 05.04.2021. 3.2. It appears that the principal reason given for the rejection of the aforementioned forms is that the petitioner's revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "1961 Act") was not pending as on the specified date, i.e., 31.01.2020. 3.3. It is Mr. Aggarwal's contention that the aforesaid reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforementioned amount, the same will be indicated to the petitioner and necessary corrective action will be taken by the petitioner. 6.2 The respondent/revenue will also take next steps in the matter which will be, as indicated above, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 6.3. The respondent/revenue will bear in mind, while taking next steps in the matter, the deadline, which presently, we are told, expires on 30.06.2021. 7. Given the aforesaid directions that have been issued in the matter, Mr. Aggarwal says, he does not wish to press the interim application any further. CM No. 18281/2021 is, thus, closed. 8. List this matter on 22.09.2021." 3. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner has already deposited 100% of the disputed tax liability and a Form-5 dated 13 December 2021 has also come to be issued, albeit subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. The solitary question which therefore merits consideration is whether the filing of the revision after the specified date but within the period of limitation as available rendered the petitioners ineligible from availing the beneficial coverage of the VSV Act. 4. The dispute itself pertains to Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for filing an appeal had not expired on the specified date. This in essence extended coverage of the Scheme even to those cases where though an order adverse to an assessee may have been passed prior to 31 January 2020, it had not lost the right to challenge in accordance with the Act as on the specified date. 7. While dealing with revisions specifically, the Board clarified that those petitions which were pending on the specified date would be covered as well. The respondents read this part of the Board directive as intended to mean that only those revisions which had either been instituted or were pending on 31 January 2020 would be covered. 8. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it discloses that it preferred a revision on 01 March 2021 taking the benefit of the extension of limitation which came to be notified by the respondents consequent to the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic. It has referred to the provisions made in Section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and in terms of which the last date for filing of appeals, replies, or applications came to be extended up to 31 March 2021. The petitioner also refers to the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndemic. If the clarification were to be viewed in that light it becomes apparent that the core theme of the Board directive was to extend the beneficial reach of the VSV Act even to those cases where assessees' still retained the right to question an adverse order or decision on the specified date and where the law itself conferred upon them a right to raise such a challenge. There thus exists no justification to restrict the ambit of the clarification merely to appeals and exclude other avenues of redress which were otherwise available to be pursued on the specified date. 13. In our considered opinion, the Scheme as well as the provisions of the VSV Act constitute beneficial legislation and are liable to be construed and interpreted accordingly. We, in this connection, draw sustenance from the following pertinent observations as rendered in MUFG Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4096. "26. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the primary question that needs to be answered is what is the rule of interpretation that the court must apply while interpreting the Dtvsv Act. 27. Every modern legislation is actuated with some policy. While ....