Rr Hotel vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Onkar S. Kanwar and Others is applicable to the present case. The Court reasoned that the object of schemes like the New Samathana Scheme 2023 is to provide a settlement of arrears and that a delay in adjudication, not attributable to the assessee, should not disentitle them from availing such benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the New Samathana Scheme 2023 for the assessment periods 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's case in light of the scheme and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, RR Hotel, represented by its proprietor T. Ravi, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to avail the New Samathana Scheme 2023 for assessment periods 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The petitioner had availed the scheme for earlier periods (2012-13 to 2014-15). However, they were not permitted to avail it for subsequent periods as the final assessment order for 2015-16 to 2017-18 was passed in 2023, five years after the pre-assessment notice in 2018. The petitioner argued that the delay was not their fault and made representations on 21.02.2024 and 21.02.2025 to extend the scheme's benefit. As these representations were not considered, the writ petition was filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the New Samathana Scheme 2023 for the assessment periods 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, despite the final assessment order being passed in 2023, considering the delay in adjudication was not attributable to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be permitted to avail the scheme. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Others vs. Onkar S. Kanwar and Others, which held that a settlement under a scheme should extend benefits to other co-noticees even if proceedings are pending in appeal, emphasizing the object of such schemes to provide finality. The petitioner contended that the delay in passing the final assessment order was not their fault, and therefore, they should not be prejudiced. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.