2002 (6) TMI 584 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for filing an application for settlement under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999.
2. Interpretation of the term "finally heard" in the context of eligibility criteria.
3. Application of Section 4A of the Settlement Act and its retrospective effect.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Filing an Application for Settlement:
The petitioner, M/s. Park Hotel Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated September 4, 2000, by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, which refused to entertain their application for settlement of tax disputes under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999. The petitioner's case involved assessments for four quarters ending June 30, 1984, which were completed on October 16, 1992. Subsequent appeals and revisions culminated in a dismissal by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal on March 4, 1999. The petitioner filed an application for settlement on July 22, 1999, under the Settlement Act, which was rejected on the grounds of non-maintainability.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Finally Heard":
The core issue was whether the petitioner was eligible to file for settlement under Section 4 of the Settlement Act. The respondent argued that the application was not maintainable as the revision had already been dismissed on March 4, 1999, before the Settlement Act came into force on July 1, 1999. The petitioner contended that the eligibility criteria under Section 4 required the appeal or revision to be pending on December 31, 1998, and not necessarily at the time of filing the settlement application. The Tribunal noted that Section 4(2) of the Act stipulates that an applicant is ineligible if the appeal or revision has been "finally heard" by the appellate or revisional authority by the date of the application. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision (2000) 35 STA 142, which clarified that the term "finally heard" refers to the date of the application for settlement, not the date of the application before the forum.

3. Application of Section 4A and Its Retrospective Effect:
The petitioner also argued that the matter was pending before the Tribunal when the application for settlement was filed on July 22, 1999. However, Section 4A, which was introduced by amendment effective from July 12, 2000, did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim the benefits of the amended provisions as their application was filed before the amendment came into force.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for filing an application for settlement under the Settlement Act of 1999. The application was not maintainable as the matter in dispute before the Board had already been dismissed on March 4, 1999, prior to the filing of the settlement application on July 22, 1999. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order dated September 4, 2000, and dismissed the application, affirming that there was no illegality in the order. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Separate Judgment:
D. Bhattacharya (Technical Member) concurred with the judgment, agreeing with the findings and conclusions.

Final Decision:
Application dismissed.