High Court Of Delhi
Ivory Mart vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Sections 1998FA(No. 2) 89, 1998FA(No. 2) 90
Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91
Dalveer Bhandari & Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Civil Writ Petn. No. 5644 of 2000
16th April, 2002
Counsel Appeared
O.S. Bajpai, Amit Shukla & Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner : J.R. Goel with Ajay Jha & Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Respondents
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dt. 24th Aug., 2000, passed by CIT by which a certificate in Form 3 of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (in short ‘KVSS’), 1998, for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 was rejected.
2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are recapitulated as under : The petitioner, Ivory Mart, along with Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Minar Art Gallery, filed a joint writ petition, i.e., CW No. 1991/92 before this Court with the prayer that the Expln. (aa) to s. 80HHC as introduced by s. 28(e)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, be declared unconstitutional, invalid and non est. The petitioners also filed an application under s. 151, CPC, along with the writ petition for interim relief. In that application, the petitioners prayed that the respondents be restrained from reopening the petitioners’ assessments for the periods 1986-87, 1987-88, 198889, 1989-90, 1990-91. During the pendency of that writ petition, respondents introduced KVSS, 1998. This scheme was introduced by the Central Government with a view to collect revenues through direct and indirect taxes by avoiding litigation. The Finance Minister explained the object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the relevant part is extracted as under [(1998) 147 CTR (St) 9 : (1998) 231 ITR (St) 67]: “Litigation has been the bane of both direct and indirect taxes. A lot of energy of the Revenue Department is being frittered in pursuing large number of litigations pending at different levels for long periods of time. Considerable revenue also gets locked up in such disputes. Declogging the system will not only incentives honest taxpayers, enable Government to realise its reasonable dues much earlier but coupled with administrative measures, would also make the system more user friendly.” The petitioner took benefit of this scheme and made declaration under s. 89 of the Finance Act (2 of 1998) in respect of KVSS, 1998. The declaration was made on 24th Dec., 1998. The last column of the scheme reads as under : Against that column, the petitioner mentioned C.W. No. 1991/92 and date of filing as 25th May, 1992, in Delhi High Court.
3. It may be pertinent to point out that in a recent judgment titled Smt. Sushila Rani vs. CIT & Anr. (2002) 172 CTR (SC) 665 : (2002) 253 ITR 775 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have mentioned as under :
“A certificate issued under s. 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998— making a determination as to the sum payable under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is conclusive as to the matters stated therein and cannot be reopened in any proceedings under any law for the time being in force, except on the ground of false declaration by the declarant.” A short controversy which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner has made any false declaration in the declaration under s. 89 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, in respect of KVSS, 1998 ?
We have carefully seen the writ petition, application for interim relief, other annexures and various Court orders. In the writ petition filed on 25th May, 1992 (CW No. 1991/92), the petitioners prayed that the Expln. (aa) to s. 80HHC as introduced by s. 28(e)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, be declared unconstitutional, invalid and non est. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents be restrained from reopening the petitioners’ assessments for the periods 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91.
According to the judgment of Smt. Sushila Rani (supra), a certificate under s. 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998—Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998—making a determination as to the sum payable under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is conclusive as to the matter stated therein and cannot be reopened in any proceedings under any law for the time being in force, except on the ground of false declaration by the declarant.
We are clearly of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of making any false declaration in the instant case. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 on 24th Aug., 2000, is quashed restoring the validity of the certificates in Form No. 2A, which are annexures D1 and D2, of the petition. The respondents are directed to issue certificate in Form No. 4 prescribed under r. 5(h) of the KVSS, 1998.
The writ petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000. CM Nos. 3114, 9223/01 are also accordingly disposed of.
[Citation : 255 ITR 425]
