Dismissed

M/s. Altek Coating Products Limited, v. The Designated Authority

Telangana HC13 Mar 2014WP/3868/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by M/s. Altek Coating Products Ltd. against an order under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, the Court held that since the underlying assessment already specified a demand for penalty, no separate Section 156 demand was needed for interest. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions also dismissed; no order as to costs.

M/s. Altek Coating Products Limited, Vs The Designated Authority — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

(DATED 13-03-2014)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶8

WP No.3868 OF 1999

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s.Altek Coating Products Ltd.

¶11

….Petitioner

¶12

And

¶13

1. The Designated Authority Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... Respondent

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶17

WP No.3868 OF 1999

¶18

ORDER :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram )

¶19

Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Designated Authority under sub-Section (1) of Section 90 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 r/w. Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (short, ‘the Scheme’). The grievance of the petitioner is that for the assessment years 1990-91, the assessee was visited with a penalty of Rs.3 lacs, questioning which he had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was pending as on the notified date. Exercising his right under the Scheme, the assessee had filed a declaration in Form-1A under Rule 3 (1) (A) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998 declaring the tax arrears outstanding as on 31-03-1998 as Rs.4,75,017/- which was inclusive of penalty and interest under Section 234 (B) of the Income Tax Act. Declaration filed by the assessee was processed by the Designated Authority and a Certificate of Intimation was issued

¶20

in Form-2A wherein interest under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act was added at Rs.2,62,215/-.

¶21

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that at no point of time, prior to the Certificate of Intimation issued by the Designated Authority, there was a demand under Section 156 r/w. Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act determining the liability of interest. In that view of the matter, he submitted that demand of interest under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act is not warranted as the same is not tax arrears within the meaning of Clause 87 (m) of the Scheme. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department would urge that interest under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act is automatic and there is no necessity for a separate notice being issued and would further urge that interest would be levied upto the date of settlement of the demand.

¶22

3. We have perused the record. On verification of the same, we find that in the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 09-02-1993, there is a

¶23

specific mention of demand having been made for the penalty levied under Section 270-B of the Income Tax Act. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is no demand as required under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Designated Authority does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶25

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶26

Dated: 13-03-2014 NRG

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶30

WP No.3868 OF 1999

¶31

( per CKR,J )

¶32

Dated: 13-03-2014

¶33

NRG

M/s. Altek Coating Products Limited, v. The Designated Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Altek Coating Products Limited, v. The Designated Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s. Spm Industries India Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Scalemaster Adlam Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

The Commissioner of Income Tax Guntur Vs Chegu Krishna Murthy and Co. Guntur

S. Nazar Basha, S/o. S. Azeez Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s.Parle (Exports)Limited, Gollapalli Village

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s. Suvera Priocessed Foods Private Limited