Loading High Court cases…
2 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 16,00,000 seized from him, along with interest. The reasoning is based on the fact that the existence of the AOP, in whose status the block assessment was made, was disbelieved by the Tribunal in its order dated January 20, 2005, which has attained finality. The subsequent reassessment order was also set aside and attained finality. The Tribunal found that there exists no demand against the petitioner arising from the seizure of cash, nor any other demand that would allow the revenue authorities to detain any part of that amount. Applying Section 132B(4)(b) read with Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from the expiry of 20 days from the last authorization issued against him, arising from the seizure/detention of Rs. 32,34,600, up to the date of actual payment on the amount of Rs. 16,00,000. The Tribunal did not find it a fit case to award any further amount by way of cost or compensation, as the block assessment order was made in the status of AOP, and the Tribunal quashed the entire assessment proceedings without allowing regular reassessment. The operative direction is that the writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 16,00,000 along with interest as calculated.
The Tribunal held that the petitioner's 'tax dues' were 'quantified' before the cut-off date of 30.06.2019. The Tribunal relied on the definition of 'quantified' in Section 121(r) of the Scheme, which means a written communication of the amount of duty payable. It further relied on a CBIC Circular issued under Section 133 of the Scheme, which clarified that an admission of duty liability in writing by a person during an enquiry or investigation would be considered a 'written communication' and thus 'quantified'. The Tribunal found that the director's statement admitting duty liability of Rs. 45,38,231/- on 13.05.2016, along with the earlier panchnama amount, constituted a quantified amount. The Tribunal also held that the CBIC Circular was binding and enforceable, even if it appeared to enlarge the scope of the Scheme, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. IOCL and UCO Bank, Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B. The reasoning of the Designated Committee was found to be contrary to law. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Designated Committee to issue the necessary SVLDRS-3 form. The petitioner was granted thirty days to deposit the amount and obtain a Discharge Certificate.