| Case ID |
2e6cc0ca-2c4b-4a3f-8080-10370be8c393 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 2003 |
| Decision |
The court ruled that the payment made by Vardhaman Chemicals through a cheque dated 10-2-1999 should be recognized as a valid payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The court held that payment by cheque relates back to the date of the cheque's delivery, and since the cheque was honored, the payment was considered timely despite being credited to the revenue account on the 31st day. The court quashed the communications from the respondent denying the benefit of the scheme and directed the issuance of a necessary certificate acknowledging the payment. This decision reinforces the principle that a cheque, unless dishonored, constitutes payment from the date of its delivery, rather than the date of encashment. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Vardhaman Chemicals v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of payment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The petitioner, Vardhaman Chemicals, sought the court's intervention after their payment was deemed late by the revenue authorities. The court examined the legal standing of cheque payments and established that payment is considered effective as of the date the cheque is delivered, not when it is cashed. This ruling emphasizes the importance of recognizing cheque payments within the stipulated deadlines under tax schemes, and it sets a precedent for similar cases involving delayed recognitions of payments. The decision is critical for businesses navigating tax compliance and settlement schemes, ensuring that they are not unfairly penalized for technicalities in payment processing. The ruling also highlights the role of legal practitioners in advocating for fair treatment under tax laws, making it a significant reference point for future tax-related litigations. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
State Bank of India,
Central Government,
Parmatma Ek Sevak Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd.
|
| Judges |
J.N. Patel,
P.S. Brahme
|
| Lawyers |
M.G. Bhangade,
Govind Mishra
|
| Petitioners |
Vardhaman Chemicals
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 3825,
(2003) 263 ITR 460
|
| Other Citations |
Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1952 Bom. 306,
CIT v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. AIR 1954 SC 429,
Kangold (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 842 (Guj.),
K. Saraswathy v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar AIR 1989 SC 1553
|
| Laws Involved |
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998
|
| Sections |
88,
90
|