Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 2857 (MAD)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. E. Prahalatha Babu

1999-12-23

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body1999
Judgment :- K.G. BALAKRISHNAN C.J. The respondent in the writ petition, Commissioner of Income-tax is the appellant. The respondentherein submitted a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of income Scheme, 1997. The said Scheme came into force on July 1, 1997, and thelast date for submitting the declaration was December 31, 1997. The declarant has to file the declaration without paying the taxpayable under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1997, and he may paythe same within three months from the date of filing of thedeclaration with simple interest at the rate of two per cent. permensem. The respondent/petitioner failed to pay the tax, on thebasis of the declaration filed by him, before the expiry of threemonths from the date of filing the declaration. The respondentought to have paid the tax on or before March 28, 1998, but hecould pay the same only on March 31, 1998. The appellant, therefore, did not accept the application of the respondent underthe Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme and as the respondentwas denied the benefit of the Scheme, he filed the writ petition. The learned single, held that eventhough there was a delay of three days in making the payment oftax, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the VoluntaryDisclosure of Income Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the presentappeal is filed. We heard the appellant's counsel. It was submitted by theappellant's counsel that the Voluntary Disclosure of IncomeScheme is a special procedure and the payment of tax should bemade in accordance with the scheme and if there is any violationof the procedure prescribed under the Scheme by any person, suchpersons cannot be given the benefit of the scheme. It is truethat the said proposition of law is correct. But, in the instantcase, the last date for submission of the application under theVoluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme was up to December 31, 1997, and the respondent paid the tax on March 31, 1998. It istrue that the declarant should have paid the tax within threemonths from the date of filing the declaration. The respondent'sapplication was filed on December 29, 1997, and therefore, thetax ought to have been paid on March 28, 1998, but the same waspaid only on March 31, 1998. The respondent had applied for abank loan since he had to pay Rs. 9.75 lakhs by way of tax as theamount declared by him under the Scheme was Rs. 38.36 lakhs. The respondent'sapplication was filed on December 29, 1997, and therefore, thetax ought to have been paid on March 28, 1998, but the same waspaid only on March 31, 1998. The respondent had applied for abank loan since he had to pay Rs. 9.75 lakhs by way of tax as theamount declared by him under the Scheme was Rs. 38.36 lakhs. Thelearned judge has exercised hisdiscretionary power and we do not think that it was contrary tothe express provision of law. An appeal against such an ordercould be interfered with only if the power exercised isirrational or illegal. We do not think that this is a fit casefor this court to interfere in appeal. Therefore, the writ appealis without any merit. The writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 20707 of 1999 is dismissed.