TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mratlal. The assessment for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.07.2006 was completed, resulting in an order dated 15.09.2012, raising a demand for tax of Rs. 6,03,905/- and a penalty of Rs. 6,03,905/-, totaling Rs. 12,07,810/-. 3.2. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 18.10.2012, by making a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 18.03.2013. However, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.06.2016. 3.3 Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a Second Appeal before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 07.10.2016, condoned the delay and directed the Petitioner to make a further payment of Rs.75,000/- within 30 days. The Petitioner complied by paying Rs. 75,000/- on 27.10.2016, and thereafter, the Tribunal passed an order on 09.11.2016, staying the recovery proceedings until the final disposal of the appeal. 3.4 In the meantime, considering the backlog of over 20,000 pending cases, the Government of Gujarat launched the 'Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019' under Resolution No. GST-102019-2006-Th dated 11.09.2019. This scheme allowed assessees with outstanding dues prior to 30.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....knowledge of the order dated 02.05.2022. 3.11 Aggrieved by the demand recovery notice dated 10.07.2023, issued by the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :- "a. A Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to condone the delay of 29 days in payment of last installments and allow the application of Petitioner under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019; b. A writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Respondent rejecting the application under Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019; c. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay the demand recovery notice dated 10.07.2023 and/ or restrain the Respondent to continue the recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order; d. In alternative, to direct the Value Added Tax Tribunal to restore the second appeal no. 859 of 2016; e. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the Petitioner ; f. Any other and further relief deemed just a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount under the Scheme. In this circumstances, it can be inferred that the Petitioner must have succumbed to dire and compelling necessity and reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner that the timeline for the last two installments only could not be adhered to by the Petitioner. The clear and unequivocal intention to avail the Scheme can be noticed from the fact that the Petitioner although belatedly paid up the entire amount. In Sunflowers (Supra), this Court discussed the object and purpose of the Amnesty Scheme as under:- "16. Thus, the object of the amnesty scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of old disputes and recoveries of old outstanding dues of the Government and reduction of administrative costs. Since such scheme is applicable to all pending cases, the officers acting under the relevant statutes are expected to respect the object of the scheme and to ensure that the assessees get the benefit under the scheme....." 6.3 In Sky (Supra), this Court while referring to the decision of Sunflowers(Supra) recorded as under:- "7.4 Thus, from the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, as referred to herein above, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustice. 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 extraordinary and exceptional circumstances cannot be taken away or curtailed by any legislation. 21. In fact, the Supreme Court in Dal Chandra Rastogi v. CBDT (2019)104 taxmann.com 341 (SC) wherein the assessee had filed a declaration of undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and had failed to pay the third installment of the remaining 50 per cent of tax, surcharge and penalty permitted the assessee to make late deposit of tax under Income Declaration Scheme subject to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is pertinent to mention that there was no provision for late deposit of tax in the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Yet the Supreme Court taking note of the genuine hardship faced by the assessee and short delay in payment, ruled in favour of the taxpa....