TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ of certiorari or in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent to issue Form 5 to the Respondent in accordance with Rule 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue directions upon the Respondent to refund the amount of INR 2,00,634/- (INR Two Lakh Six Hundred Thirty Four Only) as the Petitioner had met with the major payment requirements prior to 30/09/2021; D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case." 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah, under instructions, does not pray for prayer (C) in view of Section 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishvash Act, 2020. 5. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 6. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 7. Brief facts giving rise to this petition can be summ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Application made by the petitioner issued another Form No. 3 on 16th September, 2021 asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 12,28,500 on or before 30th September, 2021 and Rs. 14,29,350/- after the said date. 7.10. However, the petitioner paid the difference of Rs. 1,533/-(Rs. 12,28,500/- Rs. 12,27,183/-) on 12th October, 2021 instead of 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 dated 16th September, 2021. 7.11. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 21st July, 2022 requested the respondent to issue Form No. 5 by considering the late payment of short amount of Rs. 1,533/- on 12.10.2021 within the prescribed period for payment that is up to 30th September, 2021. 7.12. The respondent by letter dated 16.08.2022 directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs. 14,29,350/- as per Form 3 on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs. 12,28,500/- on or before 30th September, 2021 as only amount of Rs. 12,27,183/- was deposited on or before 30th September, 2021. 7.13. The petitioner by letter dated 25th August, 2022 again requested to consider the late payment of Rs. 1,533/- as part of the total payment as required under Form 3 contending that there was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 300/- before the specified date held that it was an inadvertent error on part of the assessee which was neither deliberate or intentional when the Principal Commissioner was directed to accept the balance payment of Rs. 300/- with interest and issue Form No. 5 in terms of the Scheme; (ii) In case of I A Housing Solution Private Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 198 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the delay in payment of tax dues was attributable to an unforeseen and extraneous circumstances that were beyond the control of the assessee in the facts of the said case and such delay was unintentional and supported by justifiable reason and therefore the same was condoned. (iii) Sky Industries Limited versus State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 246 of 2023 dated 07.06.2023 wherein, this Court considering the facts of the case before it held that merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid Rs. 2,000/- less towards the principal outstanding amount of tax, it cannot be denied the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. (iv) Neelam Ajit Phatarperkar versus Assistant Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner on 12th October, 2021 and there was a delay of twelve days in making such short payment of Rs. 1,533/-. The provisions of the Scheme under DTVSV Act are beneficial provisions so as to reduce the litigation and the petitioner therefore cannot be subjected to the harsh approach of denying the benefit of waiver of interest and penalty under the Scheme by considering the short payment of Rs. 1,533/- by delay of twelve days as fatal to consider the entire payment made by the petitioner of Rs. 12,27,183/- as null and void under the Scheme. The object of the Scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of pending tax litigation and recovery of the outstanding dues of the Government resulting into reduction of administrative cost. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Kartik Pravinchandra Mehta (Supra) in similar facts has held as under : "6. The Direct Tax, Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto as is clear from the preamble of the said Act. The purpose and spirit of such an enactment can be noticed from the Bill t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e whole of the disputed tax if the payment is made before the 31st day of March, 2020 and for the payments made after the 31st day of March, 2020 but on or before the date notified by Central Government, the amount payable shall be increased by 10 per cent of disputed tax; (d) in appeals related to disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, the amount payable by the declarant shall be 25 per cent of the disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, as the case may be, if the payment is made on or before the 31st day of March, 2020. If payment is made after the 31st day of March, 2020 but on or before the date notified by Central Government, the amount payable shall be increased to 30 per cent of the disputed penalty, disputed interest or disputed fee, as the case may be. 4. The proposed Bill shall come into force on the date it receives the assent of the President and declaration may be made thereafter up to the date to be notified by the Government." It is thus clear that the spirit of the enactment was to unlock the amounts held up in disputes on account of pendency of various appeals filed by not only the tax payers but also the Govern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but, that income had not been disclosed in the return; c. to disclose the income chargeable to tax where the return of income had been filed without disclosing the full and true material facts necessary for the assessment of that income. 14. Consequently, the VDI Scheme provided a one-time opportunity to the assessees to declare the undisclosed income which was concealed by the assessees and at the same time, provided them with immunity from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Act for not voluntarily disclosing the income chargeable to tax. Hence, the VDI Scheme was in the nature of an amnesty scheme which provided a window to the assessees to come clean without any adverse consequences under the provisions of the Act. It was in this context that the Apex Court observed that "....Where the assessees seek to claim the benefit under the statutory scheme they are bound to comply with the conditions under which the benefit is granted there is no application of any equitable consideration when the provisions of scheme are stated in such plain language". 15. In fact, while interpreting a similar scheme "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme", the Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice. The Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held "It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice". 19. One of us (Manmohan, J) in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 4797, para 41 has held, "it is settled law that this Court has extremely broad jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and under the said Article it can pass whatever orders are necessary for doing equity and justice. The Supreme Court in N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744 has held that "unlike a inferior court, in respect of a High Court, which is also a Court of Record, it is assumed that every action is within its jurisdiction, unless expressly shown otherwise". 20. Consequently, the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief in ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,634/- which was the difference between the amount of Rs. 14,29,350/- and Rs. 12,28,500/- to be payable after 30th September, 2021 as per the Form 3 dated 16th September, 2021 issued by the respondent. 15. In such circumstances, it would be germane to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yashi Construction (Supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "2. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the the prerogative of the Government." 16. In the facts of the said case, the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Scheme within the time limit provided under the Scheme i.e. during thirty days whereas, in the facts of the case, the petitioner has paid the almost entire amount except Rs. 1,533/- within the specified time period on or....