2016 (5) TMI 1111 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether it is possible to settle a part of a pending dispute under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 without settling the entire appeal or revision - Held that - ordinarily, a settlement would amount to the entire dispute being resolved. Though it may even be handy to have some areas of disagreement resolved so that the other arrears do not require much time for adjudication, in the scheme of the said Act of 1999 and the clear words of Section 10 thereof, it is the entirety of the dispute in the appeal or the revision that has to be resolved under the settlement provision or none at all. Since it is the admitted position that the petitioner had attempted to settle only a part of the dispute which was the subject-matter of the pending revision before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board , the department cannot be faulted for issuing the showcause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why the application filed by the petitioner for part settlement should not be dismissed. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Whether it is possible to settle a part of a pending dispute under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 without settling the entire appeal or revision.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to settle only one aspect of a dispute under the Act of 1999, raising the question of whether partial settlement is permissible. The petitioner argued that nothing in the Act prohibits settling a part of the dispute without compromising the entirety of the matter. Reference was made to various sections of the Act to support the petitioner's eligibility for settlement and the application process. The petitioner emphasized Section 7 as crucial for providing benefits to the assessee under the settlement scheme.

The State contended that settlement provisions aim to conclude pending proceedings entirely. Section 10 of the Act was highlighted, stating that an appeal or revision must be withdrawn upon settlement, indicating that the dispute must be fully resolved under the settlement provision. The department argued that the purpose of settlement schemes is to clear pending cases and unlock revenue, emphasizing that the Act does not allow for partial resolution of disputes pending adjudication.

The court analyzed the wording of Section 10 and concluded that the provision does not support the petitioner's interpretation. It was emphasized that the Act's overarching goal is to dispose of pending cases before adjudicating authorities. While acknowledging that resolving some areas of disagreement may expedite the process, the court held that under the Act, the entirety of the dispute in an appeal or revision must be settled, or none at all.

The judgment declined to interfere with the show-cause notice issued by the department regarding the petitioner's partial settlement application. However, the petitioner was given the opportunity to modify the application to include the settlement of the entire dispute pending before the Board within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded, and urgent certified copies of the order were made available to the parties upon request.