2018 (10) TMI 1363 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Payment of deficit tax - Samadhan Act 2010 - application filed by the petitioner was rejected after a period of nearly 8 years without any communication made when application was filed - Held that - The very notice of proposal to reject the petitioner s application itself was issued after nearly 5 years that is on 12.01.2015, that too by the first respondent. It is further seen that thereafter the notice of personal hearing was given by the first respondent, before whom the petitioner appeared and explained - the second respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order, which is not only outside his jurisdiction and also is unsustainable on the reason that such rejection cannot be made after a period of nearly 5 years especially, when the Revenue is bound to inform the petitioner to make the deficit Tax if any, to be paid within a period of 10 days. In the absence of any such communication, the petitioner cannot be faulted on any account. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent has not passed any order so far. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's request for remittance under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010 rejected by second respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a public limited company, contested an assessment order for the year 1984-85, leading to a series of appeals culminating in the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal restoring the initial assessment. Subsequently, under the Samadhan Act 2010, the petitioner filed Form I and paid a sum, expecting settlement. However, after years of inaction, the first respondent issued a notice questioning the settlement arrears. The second respondent then directed the petitioner to pay a substantial amount immediately, prompting the petitioner's grievance.

The petitioner argued that the rejection of their application after eight years was unjust, citing the failure of authorities to adhere to the rules' communication requirements. Additionally, jurisdictional issues were raised, asserting that the second respondent lacked authority as the first respondent had not finalized the matter. The Government Advocate acknowledged a similar case where a judge favored the petitioner under comparable circumstances.

The High Court scrutinized the timeline of events, noting the delayed notice of proposal and lack of communication regarding deficit tax payment. Emphasizing procedural lapses and the need for a fair opportunity for the petitioner, the Court referenced a prior judgment favoring a petitioner due to similar flaws. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration within a specified timeframe.