9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 746 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether petitioner ineligible for applying for a one-time settlement under Ordinance of the year 2008? Held that - It is clear that the petitioner was entitled to file an application under section 4 of the Ordinance and the rejection of his application on this ground is not sustainable. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to receive the application of the petitioner under section 4 of the Ordinance. It is open to the first respondent to examine the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders.
Issues:
Challenge to order of ineligibility for one-time settlement under 2008 Ordinance. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order of ineligibility for a one-time settlement under the 2008 Ordinance. The petitioner's appeal against an assessment order from 1994 was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in 1995. However, the Joint Commissioner later revised the order, leading to a demand in 2002. The petitioner applied for settlement under the 2008 Ordinance, but the application was rejected based on the interpretation that the benefit was only for arrears prior to April 1, 2002. The court noted that the original assessment was from 1994, even though a consequential order was passed in 2002. The court referred to a clarification letter stating that modifications made post-April 1, 2002, to assessments prior to that date were eligible for the scheme. The court held the rejection of the petitioner's application was incorrect and allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to receive the application and examine it on its merits. This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for the one-time settlement under the 2008 Ordinance. It emphasizes that assessments made before April 1, 2002, qualify for the scheme, even if modifications are made post that date. The court highlighted the importance of a broad interpretation of the provisions to ensure the intended beneficiaries can avail the benefits. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the legislative intent behind such settlement schemes and ensuring fair access to relief for eligible parties.
|
