Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Navin Housing and Properties (P) Ltd. Vs Designated Committee under Sabka Vishwas Legacy (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 477 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/07/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Navin Housing and Properties (P) Ltd. Vs Designated Committee under Sabka Vishwas Legacy (Madras High Court)

In the present case, there is an overlap between the period covered under SCN1 and SCN2, the former covering the period December 2008 to January 2010 and the latter the period April 2008 to March 2010. The periods December 2008 to January 2010 are thus common under both SCNs. The revenue agrees in counter that the demand is duplicated. Hence, according to them, the demand under OinO2 stands reduced which 30%, as per the Scheme. Then they say that the amount duplicated needs to be reduced from the original demand and cannot be used as pre-deposit for the present demand as it has already been used towards pre-deposit for the appeal challenging OinO 1. This argument is unacceptable. R2 has, after examination of the two SCNs, Orders  in Original and the demands raised thereunder held that the appeal is maintainable and this cannot be called into question again in counter. In fact,  the counter, filed after the order passed by R2, runs contrary to the officers’ findings and conclusion.

High Court states that there being no dispute on the position that the  petitioner  has, admittedly, remitted the amount and the demand under SCN2/OinO2 is a duel demand, the computation of the petitioner is accepted and the impugned order set aside. The Dispute Resolution Scheme is an attempt to close legacy tax disputes and a certain amount of fairness should be seen in the interpretation of the provisions of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent would harp on the argument that a dispute raised under one SCN cannot be settled by utilising a deposit made under a different SCN. This argument does not arise in a case such as the present, since the two SCNs relate to identical transactions, time periods and demands and constitute a duplication of proceedings.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031