AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3563 ::2002 AIR SCW 4179 ::2003 TAX. L. R. 222 ::(2002) 145 ELT 266 ::(2002) 105 ECR 275 ::2002 (5) SLT 481 ::(2002) 177 CurTaxRep 281 ::2002 (7) SCC 591 ::(2002) 7 Scale 88 ::2003 (113) Com Cas 264 ::(2002) 258 ITR 761 ::(2003) 1 KHCACJ 86 (SC) ::(2002) 125 Taxman 121 ::2002 (4) LRI 595 ::2003 (174) Taxation 213 ::(2002) 7 Supreme 1 ::2002 (9) SRJ 537 ::(2002) 7 JT 439 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2000 Tax LR 702 (Kerala))

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. S. M. Quadri, S. N. Variava , JJ

(A) Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (1998) , S.91— Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order (1998) , Para.1— Immunity on settlement - Show cause notices to company and its officers regarding levy of excise duty and penalty - Each entity/person would have to file declaration separately - Consequent settlement is in respect of each declaration - S. 91 gives immunity only in respect of matters covered in the declaration - Declaration by company not covering tax arrears of Directors/Officers - Hence they get no immunity under S. 91 from imposition of penalty on a settlement by company. (Para 12) (B) Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (1998) , S.91— Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order (1998) , Para.1— Interpretation of order - Order (1998) has to be read as a whole and along with Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Words 'pending adjudication' cannot be read to exclude cases where proceedings are pending in appeal - Hence when show cause notice was adjudicated upon and appeal is pending, party can still take benefit of the scheme and file declaration. This order has to be read as a whole. If read as a whole, it is clear that a settlement by the main declarant is to operate as full and final settlement in respect of all other persons on wh....