Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 606 (KER)

R. Ranganatha Reddiar v. The Income Tax Officer

2004-12-02

K.M.JOSEPH

body2004
Judgment :- The writ petition is filed with the following prayers. “(1) Call for the records of the case leading to Exhibit P2 letter and Exhibit P2 letter and Exhibit P3 certificate and declare that the payment offered by the petitioner towards the third instalment under the Scheme is regular and proper by interpreting the effect, nature and scope of the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of income Scheme and the Finance Act, 1997 and that the petitioner is entitled for a certificate covering the entire disclosure as per Exhibit P1 declaration. (2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept the 3rd instalment of Rs.40,000/- plus interest and issue an immunity certificate u/s. 8(1) proportionately for such instalment or to issue a fresh certificate covering the entire disclosed income of Rs.4,00,000/-. (3) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the first and second respondents from proceeding with regular or re-assessment proceeding or penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1996-97 or for any of the previous assessment years based on the facts of declaration.” 2. It is not disputed that the question in hand is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income Tax & another (259 (2003) ITR 1). The petitioner made an application under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 on 10.12.1997. It was accepted by the Department. Under the Scheme, the petitioner was to pay the tax due, namely Rs.1,20,000/- within a period of three months from the date on which he filed the application. He was, therefore, to make the payment before 10.3.1998. It is not disputed that he made the last payment only on 12.3.1998 which was beyond the prescribed period of ninety days. The Commissioner has accepted the income of the petitioner as Rs.2,56,410/-. Ext.P3 is the Certificate evidencing the same. The petitioner, therefore, becomes entitled to either refund or adjustment of the third instalment which was paid after the due date, on 12.3.1998 in terms of the decision referred to above. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that the petitioner ought to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, and that the said authority can be directed to pass orders on the application of the petitioner for either refund or for adjustment in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that the petitioner ought to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, and that the said authority can be directed to pass orders on the application of the petitioner for either refund or for adjustment in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petitioner shall file an application praying for refund or adjustment as the case may be of the third instalment, before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram within three weeks from today. If such an application is made, the Commissioner of Income Tax shall pass orders thereon in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income Tax & another (259 (2003) ITR 1). The Original Petition is disposed of as above.