9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought for interest under Section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. His writ petition was partly allowed by the learned single Judge on 25.01.2011 setting aside the order dated 23.10.2010 of the first appellant and directed him to issue refund voucher in terms of his order dated 03.10.2008, within four weeks from the date of receipt of order and the same is challenged herein. 2. Proceeding to the facts, the assessment year is 1996-97 and the best judgment assessment order was passed on 30.11.1998 which was subsequently, revised on 28.03.2002. The respondent filed an appeal in A.P. 207/07, and with the sole objective of giving an opportunity to the respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order dated 23.09.2010, the claim of refund was rejected on the grounds that any order passed by the Assessing Authority subsequent to the application for settlement under Samadhan Scheme could not be reopened and the claim was not admissible under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed by the respondent alleging inter alia that the payment of interest under the Samadhan Scheme will not affect the refund claim, which was already decided by the first appellant and therefore the same will not come within the purview of Samadhan Scheme. Even though, no claim of interest for belated refund was made earlier, the respondent also claimed interest. The Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest claim made by the Department and the amount payable under the Samadhan Scheme could have been determined. This negligence has caused substantive loss to the exchequer. But for the lackadaisical acts of the appellants, present situation would not arise. Even the second appellant has failed to vigilantly analyse the eligibility and the particulars given in the Samadhan application. Since the eligibility of the respondent to apply for settlement of interest due is not the issue in this appeal, we are not going deep into it. In any event, the period for revoking the Settlement Certificate has already lapsed and therefore cannot be reopened. 6. Admittedly, the respondent was entitled for refund of Rs. 9,75,447/- and the issue to be decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of such arrears of tax, penalty or interest under this Ordinance, will not be taken into consideration." For Section 10 to be made applicable, the issue pending before the authority must be with respect to the Certificate issued under Section 8 and that the order of refund must have been made after the application for settlement under Section 5. In the instant case, the Certificate was issued only with respect to the application made for settlement of interest. The refund was ordered on 03.10.2008 even before the Ordinance was published. Therefore no reliance can be placed upon Sections 9 and 10 of the Settlement of Arrears Act. 9. Upon examination of the Sections of the Settlement of Arrears Act, it is evident that an application has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
