Taxpayers With Pending Appeals Eligible For 50% Relief Under 2020 Samadhan Scheme: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom said that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% reduction beneath the 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020).
Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi noticed that the assessee’s case is pending earlier than the appellate authority, and the division wrongly thought of the case of the assessee beneath Class 1 of Part 4(1) of the Ordinance, which offers with the quantity associated to the statutory certificates/declaration.
Assessee/Petitioner is engaged within the manufacturing of equipment forms of gear. The petitioner’s evaluation for the monetary yr 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 beneath the Central Gross sales Tax Act was accomplished, and an extra demand of Rs.20,88,443/- was issued towards the petitioner. The aforesaid demand was calculated because of the non-submission of C-Types.
The assessee most popular an enchantment earlier than the Deputy Commissioner, Industrial Tax, by depositing the extra demand of Rs.5,24,000/-. The appellate authority granted the tax reduction of Rs.5,04,362/-, subsequently, as per the order of the First Appellate Authority, the demand was lowered to Rs.10,60,081/-.
The assessee challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority earlier than the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tax Appellate Board by depositing 20% of the stability quantity of Rs.2,12,021.
Throughout the pendency of this enchantment, the State Authorities got here up with the ordinance in the identify of The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020 (“the Ordinance”).
In accordance to the assessee, Clause ‘f’ of Part 2(1) defines the ‘disputed quantity’. In accordance to this any demand towards which the litigation has been filed earlier than the appellate authority. Due to this fact, for the aim of settlement beneath this Ordinance, the disputed quantity would be the quantity pending within the litigation earlier than the MPCTAB.
The assessee utilized in a prescribed kind to get the advantage of the Ordinance. The assessee deposited the quantity of Rs.3,17,622/- which is a 50% quantity of the demand of tax. Respondent No.3 rejected the declare of the assessee so as to pay an additional quantity which is the same as the 100% of the remaining stability quantity of the arrears of tax.
In accordance to the assessee, the disputed quantity means any demand towards which the litigation has been filed earlier than any appellate authority or discussion board and the case of the assessee falls into this class as a result of his enchantment is pending earlier than the appellate authority. Due to this fact, the valuation made within the enchantment shall be the disputed quantity for the aim of settlement beneath the Ordinance.
In accordance to the division, the case of the assessee falls into the primary class which offers with the quantity associated to statutory certificates and declaration.
As per the order of the First Appellate Authority the demand has been lowered to 15,84,081/- as a result of within the enchantment the assessee submitted Part 29 Kind-C valued Rs.46,76,808/- which has been accepted by the appellate authority and lowered Rs.15,84,081/- which is a disputed quantity within the enchantment, subsequently, the case of the assessee falls beneath Part 4(1) & (3) of the Ordinance, famous the bench.
The bench held that “had the petitioner submitted an utility for settlement beneath the Ordinance throughout the pendency of the continuing earlier than the Evaluation Officer, then actually this case would have fallen beneath class 1, however now that stage has crossed. The petitioner’s case is pending earlier than the appellate authority as per the definition of two(f) the settlement quantity is liable to be calculated on the premise of the disputed quantity.”
In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Gear Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION No. 12770 of 2021
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: Harshvardhan Sharma
Counsel for Respondent/ Division: Bhuwan Gautam
