Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (2) TMI 402 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Rejection of Samadhan Application under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002.
2. Eligibility for settlement under the Act.
3. Interpretation of the provisions regarding splitting of cases for settling arrears.
4. Compliance with the statutory timelines for issuing notices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Samadhan Application
The petitioner's Samadhan Application to settle arrears of tax under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 was rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner challenged this rejection through writ petitions, arguing that the rejection was not maintainable either on facts or on law.

Issue 2: Eligibility for Settlement
The Act allows applicants to settle arrears of tax, penalty, or interest in dispute under specific conditions. The petitioner was under the Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme and had filed applications for settlement under the Act for various assessment years. The court analyzed the eligibility criteria under Section 4 of the Act and determined that the petitioner was entitled to settle arrears of tax for the non-deferral period.

Issue 3: Splitting of Cases for Settlement
The petitioner contended that the Act did not preclude splitting the amount into deferral and non-deferral under the Samadhan Scheme. The court agreed that the petitioner could avail the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme for amounts outside the deferral period. It ruled that the petitioner could settle arrears of tax for the non-deferral amount alone, and the rejection of the benefit for non-deferral tax was quashed.

Issue 4: Compliance with Timelines
The petitioner argued that the notices issued were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and Rules. Specifically, the notices were issued long after the 10-day limit for rectification of defects or omissions in the application. The court did not find merit in this argument and focused on the substantive issues related to eligibility and settlement under the Act.

In conclusion, the court partially allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned orders to the extent that the petitioner was denied the benefit of settling arrears of tax for the non-deferral period. The first respondent was directed to issue appropriate certificates to the petitioner for settling the liability to the extent of arrears of tax for the non-deferral period.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates