LexHEMALATHA GARGYA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HEMALA THA GARGY A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
NOVEMBER 28, 2002
B
[RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]
Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997:
Ss. 66 and 67 (I )-Period prescribed to deposit tax in respect of voluntary
C disclosure income-Power of Revenue authorities to extend the period-Held,
Revenue authorities have no power to extend the time-s. 66 postulates payment
of tax prior to making of the declaration-s.67(1) provides an exception to
this general rule and allows a declarant to file declaration without paying tax,
subject to two conditions viz.: (i) the payment bf tax within three months from
D the date of filing of the declaration together with; (ii) the payment of simple
interest @2% for the period from filing the declaration to the date of payment
of tax-Thus the Revenue authority cannot act beyond the provisions of !he
Scheme itself-Power to accept payment under the Scheme has been prescribed
by the statute-There is no scope for the Revenue authorities to imply a
provision not specifically provided for which would in any way modify the
E explicit terms of the Scheme.
Kamal Sood v. Union of India, 241 ITR 567(P&H); Vyshnavi Appliances
Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr., 243 ITR l Ol{AP); Smt.
Atamjit Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax 247 ITR 356(Kar); M Kuppan
v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 249 ITR 543 (Mad.); and K. Dilip Kumar
F v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors., 241 ITR 16(Ker.), approved.
Smt. Laxmi Mittal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 238 ITR 97(P&H);
E. Prahalatha Bubu v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 241 ITR 457(Mad.) and
Commissioner of Income Tax v. E. Prahalatha Babu, 249 ITR 309(Mad.),
G overruled.
H
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627, referred to.
Interpretation of Statute:
Mandatory provision-Interpretation of-Held, the use of word "shall"
382
' ..
HEMALATHAGARGYA v. C.LT.
383
in a statute ordinarily speaking 111eans the statutory provision is mandatory- A
ft is construed as such unless there is so1nething in the context in l-Vhich the
11iord is used which would justifo a departure fro111 this 111eaning-There is
nothing in the longuage of the provision of the Scheme which would justifj·
such a departure-Besides ivhen consequence of the failure to con1ply with the
prescribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, there is no manner of B
doubt that n1uch statutory requirement niust be interpreted as n1andatory-
Volunary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997: s.67(1).
Maqbool Ahmad and Ors. v. Onkar Pratap Narayan Singh, AIR (1935)
Privy Council 85, relied on.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article I 36-Special leave petition-Dismissed in limine-He/d, dismissal
would not operate as confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to
he appealed against, nor does such dismissal by itself operate as an argument
against the petitioner in such special leave petition-Precedent.
Practice and Procedure:
A certain inte1pretation on an issue given by a High Court not challenged
c
D
by Revenue-Subsequently the very same interpretation given in another case
challenged by Revenue-Held, the principle appears to he limited to decisions E
of jurisdictional High Court-Besides, the decisions make it clear that given
'just cause", the Revenue could challenge the interpretation subsequent/y-
The decisions of different High Courts holding to the contrary as well as the
suhsequent conflicting decision of the same High Court itself would come
within the phrase ''just cause".
Union of India and Ors. v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr., 249
!TR 219 and Union of India and Ors. v. Sat1sh Pana/a/ Shah, 249 !TR 221,
referred to.
Words and Phrases:
"Shall" occurring ins. 66 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme,
1997-Interpretation of
"just cause"-Scope of.
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6266 of H
384
A 2000.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
B
c
D
From the Judgment and Order dated I 1.4.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 5770 of 2000.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6267-6269/2000 and 1804-1805 of 200 I.
T.L.V. Iyer, Gauri Shankar, R.P. Bhat, Niraj Gupta, Ms. Revathy
Raghavan, K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Sushma Suri and B.V. Bairam Das for the
appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was detivered
The issue involved in all these appeals is whether the time for payment
fixed under Sec. 67 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 19Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.