Madhya Pradesh H.C : The question is with regard to an interpretation of s. 95(i) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Scheme of 1998”).

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench

Shree Amarlal Kirana Stores vs. CIT And Others

Section 95(i)(c)

Deepak Verma & S.L. Kochar, JJ.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2002

7th January, 2003

Counsel Appeared :

G.M. Chafekar Sarda, for the Appellant

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

In this intra-Court appeal, the question is with regard to an interpretation of s. 95(i) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Scheme of 1998”). For ready reference s. 95(i) of the said scheme is reproduced hereinbelow : “95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases.—The provisions of this scheme shall not apply— (i) in respect of tax arrear under any direct tax enactment,— . . . (c) to a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court on the date of filing of declaration or no application for revision is pending before the CIT on the date of filing declaration.”

2. The appellant’s declaration filed under the Scheme of 1998 has been filed by the Department with the following order :

“This is in reference to your declaration filed under the KVSS-98 on 31st Dec., 1998. As there is no appeal/revision pending, you are not eligible for relief in terms of the Kar Vivad Samadan Scheme, 1998, and, therefore, the declaration is filed.”

3. This order came to be passed by the CIT on 7th Dec., 2001. This was a subject-matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge [see Shree Amarlal Kirana Stores vs. CIT & Ors. (2003) 180 CTR (MP) 355 : (2003) 259 ITR 572 (MP)]. The learned Single Judge has examined the question at great length and has found that although at best the appeal of the appellant can be said to be pending, the same was not admitted and the words used in s. 95(i)(c) of the Scheme of 1998 were utmost important which had used the words that the provisions of the Scheme of 1998 would not apply to a case where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted and pending before any appellate authority. The word “admitted” is of utmost importance. The same cannot be ignored or given a go-by. The appellant has failed to prove it to our satisfaction that at any point of time, its appeal stood admitted also. The legislature has used the word “admitted” with some purpose. The word “admitted” cannot be employed for being used only for the High Court and the Supreme Court. It applies to the appellate authority also with full force.

4. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are satisfied that the words admitted and pending have been properly interpreted by him. The said appeal calls for no interference. All the points which were pressed by learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge have been negatived. The same questions were once again reiterated before us. It is, therefore, not necessary to burden this judgment by writing the same reasonings which have been arrived at by the learned Single Judge elaborately, as we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not erroneous.

5. We find no merit or substance in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. Even otherwise, in the intra-Court appeal, the scope of interference is very much limited. The appeal stands hereby dismissed.

[Citation : 267 ITR 48]

Malcare WordPress Security