State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

Delhi High Court Clarifies: 'Delay in Filing Appeal Does Not Preclude Benefits Under Vivad Se Vishwas Act'"

31 December 2024 9:37 AM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court rules that taxpayers can still qualify for DTVSV scheme despite delayed appeal dismissal, provided the appeal window is open. In a significant judgment dated May 16, 2024, the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition by PT Bukaka Teknik Utama, clarifying that taxpayers can avail the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act), even if their appeal was dismissed due to a delay, provided the window to file an appeal had not expired on the specified date. The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the remedial statute to ensure it serves its intended purpose of resolving tax disputes.

PT Bukaka Teknik Utama, an Indonesian entity, filed its Income Tax Return for AY 2010-11 declaring a total income of ₹6,27,250. After scrutiny, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on May 24, 2013, assessing the income at ₹1,69,68,210. The assessee’s appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed on January 1, 2020, due to a four-year delay. Following the introduction of the DTVSV Act, the assessee sought to settle the dispute under the scheme but faced rejection from the Revenue Department on grounds of ineligibility as no appeal was pending on the specified date.

The court highlighted the need for a liberal interpretation of remedial statutes like the DTVSV Act, which aims to resolve tax disputes and ensure timely tax collection. "Such statutes shall be read in a way to effectuate the intended objectives that the legislature envisaged while drafting the statute and to justifiably secure that the relief contemplated by the statute is not denied to the class intended to be relieved"​​.

The court noted that as per the DTVSV Act, either an appeal should be pending or the time limit for filing an appeal should not have expired as on the specified date (January 31, 2020). In PT Bukaka's case, the time limit to file an appeal against the CIT(A) order was still open on the specified date, making the assessee eligible to apply under the scheme. "It is not doubted by the Revenue that the time limit for filing the appeal against the CIT(A) order before the ITAT had not expired as on the specified date"​​.

The court clarified that the dismissal of an appeal by CIT(A) on the grounds of delay does not negate the existence of disputed tax arrears. "Once the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of being barred by limitation, the resultant effect of such an order would be confirmation of the assessment order so passed"​​. Thus, the assessee remains eligible under the DTVSV Act since the disputed tax arrears continue to exist.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind the DTVSV Act, which seeks to resolve longstanding tax disputes and ensure efficient tax collection. It underscored that qualifications related to the pending status of appeals should not obstruct the remedial objectives of the Act. "It is of no significance whether the pending appeal merits consideration or is filed against an order, whereby, the dismissal was on the ground of being barred by limitation"​​.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated, "The DTVSV Act aspires to finally free the tax arrears locked in litigation combat for ages and ultimately ensures timely collection of tax"​​.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding the beneficial objectives of the DTVSV Act, providing clarity on the eligibility criteria for taxpayers seeking to resolve disputes under the scheme. The decision is expected to aid many taxpayers in similar situations, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder the resolution of substantive tax disputes.

Date of Decision: 16th May 2024

 

Latest Legal News