| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2257 2004 SLD 2257 (2004) 267 ITR 693 |
Karnataka High Court
WRIT PETITION NO. 13008 OF 2003 (T-IT) JANUARY 7, 2004
MANGILAL S., JAIN, D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
WRIT PETITION NO. 13008 OF 2003 (T-IT) JANUARY 7, 2004
MANGILAL S., JAIN, D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mangilal S. Jain
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Special schemes enacted by Parliament to give some special concessions are to be strictly interpreted in terms of scheme itself Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 - Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Petitioner paid amount payable under section 88 six days beyond permitted period; therefore, designated authority refused to issue certificate as contemplated under section 90(2) - On writ, petitioner sought for lenient interpretation of scheme and to relax requirement of payment within 30 days, as stipulated under scheme - Whether since time stipulations were provided for in scheme itself and there was no ambiguity in language and words used in provisions of section 90, relaxing any of requirements purporting to be by way of interpretation would amount to rewriting provisions of scheme - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, there was no scope for interpreting any of provisions of scheme to dilute requirements of scheme or to enlarge its provisions so as to enlarge benefits of scheme to assessee - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner invoked the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme whereupon the amount payable under section 88 was deter- mined and communicated to him. The petitioner paid the amount six days beyond the permitted period of thirty days as was required under section 90(2); therefore, the Commissioner, who was the designated authority, refused to issue the certificate. On writ, the petitioner contended, inter alia, that the provisions of section 90(2) were required to be interpreted, particularly the meaning attributed to the word 'shall' used in section 90(2), and that the requirement of payment within 30 days as stipulated under the scheme should be relaxed. HELD The said scheme was a special scheme enacted by the Parliament. It sought to give some special concessions. Time stipulations were provided for in the scheme itself. There was no ambiguity in the language and the words used in the provisions of section 90 and relaxing any of the requirements purporting to be by way of interpretation would only amount to rewriting the provisions of the scheme. These types of schemes are promulgated for short periods and will be in operation for that duration…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492