News Update

Govt Clarifies Amendment In Provisions Is Not To Regulate Trade In Cattle But To Prevent CruetyHP Assembly passes GST Bill, 2017Favourable tax structure and largest EEZs make Mauritius a major investment destination: JugnauthDIPP vested with powers to grant defence industrial licencesMissing FCRA return - Final call to NGOsCBEC issues first Mega AGT order of 749 ACs at All-India levelCBEC moves Himani Bhayana from GST Council Secretariat to GST Policy Wing in BoardGadkari launches India’s first fleet of 200 electric vehicles in NagpurMCA Secretary Tapan Ray gets addl charge of Secretary, Economic AffairsIGI Airport Customs seizes gold biscuits worth Rs 80 lakhsMerger of Tribunals & amendments in conditions of Chairpersons and Members - Govt notifies May 26 as the appointed dayTelecom to avail credit of IGST and imported goods: GovtVeteran cop K P S Gill is no more; PM sends condolenceEPFO to consider lowering of contribution to 10%PM inaugurates India’s longest river bridge over Lohit river in AssamI-T - Search - Whether additions can be made in relation to a particular AY without having any incriminating materials qua that AY - NO: HCCBDT promotes five officers as Principal CCITs + issues posting orderTale of Missing Gold from Customs Vault - CBI arrests CustodianI-T - Submission of financial transactions - Deadline is May 31CBDT Panel to peep into nature and type of tax arrearsNITI's 3yr Action Agenda merits timely action to reboot growthI-T - Exemption u/s 54 cannot be denied on ground that residential property was purchased outside India when requirement of making investment in property only in India was subsequently added - ITATCus – CHA license - Licensing authority is not envisaged as an appellant under CHALR, 1984 - Option to appeal is specifically permitted in Regulations only to an aggrieved licensee: CESTATST - Amalgamation proceedings cannot make credit availed of ST paid on royalty charges as improper: CESTATMumbai Air Cargo Customs busts Rs 26 Cr mobile phone smuggling racketNaidu to review progress of Urban Missions in ChhatisgarhDIPP notifies fresh definition of startup in biotechnology sectorProposed GST rates are lower for milk powder, tea, sugar & coffee (See 'GST News' in GST Homepage)Telecom Ministry closely monitoring fall-out of GST: Minister
 
I-T - Application for compounding of offence cannot be rejected on ground of limitation, when no such limitation period is prescribed under CBDT circular issued in that behalf: HC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APRIL 21, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether an application for compounding of offences can be rejected on the ground of limitation when no such limitation period is prescribed in the CBDT circular issued in that behalf. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The present writ petition was filed at a stage when the Petitioner's application for compounding of offences u/s 279 (2), was still pending. In response to the Petitioner's application, he was sent the a communication. In terms thereof, the Petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 69, 67,699/- even for his application to be considered. This was purportedly in terms of a circular dated 23rd December, 2014 issued by CBDT issuing the guidelines for compounding of offences under Direct Taxes Law & Practice, 2015. The Petitioner contends that the above levy of compounding charges of nearly Rs. 70 lakhs, even before its application could be considered was exorbitant and without any authority of law. In those circumstances, the present writ petition, sought the quashing of the above circular and, in particular, para 12 thereof which sets out the fee for compounding.

In response to the notice issued in the present writ petition, a reply was filed by the Department setting out the basis for calculation of the compounding charges. Enclosed with the counter affidavit is an order dated passed by the CCIT declining the Petitioner's application for compounding of offences u/s 275C(1), 276C(2) & 277 on the ground that "there is inordinate delay of 9 years in filing of application for compounding of offences by the assessee. On the strength of the above order, it was urged by the counsel that the rejection of the application for compounding was not on the ground of failure to pay the compounding fee, but on the ground of the delay in filing the application.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ the circular dated 23rd December, 2014 does not stipulate a limitation period for filing the application for compounding. What the said circular sets out in para 8 are "Offences generally not to be compounded". In this, one of the categories which is mentioned in sub-clause (vii) is: "Offences committed by a person for which complaint was filed with the competent court 12 months prior to receipt of the application for compounding". The above clause is not one prescribing a period of limitation for filing an application for compounding. It gives a discretion to the competent authority to reject an application for compounding on certain grounds. Again, it does not mean that every application, which involves an offence committed by a person, for which the complaint was filed to the competent court 12 months prior to the receipt of the application for compounding, will without anything further, be rejected. The grounds on which an application may be considered, should not be confused with the limitation for filing such an application. The reason given in the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 for rejection of the Petitioner's application does not satisfy the criteria spelt out in the guidelines issued by the Department by its Circular dated 23rd December 2014. It has proceeded on a ground that is not available to the Department viz., that the application is inordinately delayed. Since there is no other reason given for the rejection of the application, the Court is unable to sustain the order dated 3rd November, 2016 of the CCIT by which the Petitioner's application for compounding was rejected. The said order is hereby set aside. The Petitioner's application for compounding will have to considered afresh by the CCIT.

(See 2017-TIOL-771-HC-DEL-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS