9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate orders. - W.P. No. 3104 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2009 - RAMASUBRAMANIAN V. , J. ORDER:- V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN J. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent holding the petitioner ineligible for applying for a one-time settlement under Ordinance of the year 2008. Heard Mr. R. Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice for the respondents. Since the issue raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass and also since it is a legal issue, the writ petition was taken up by consent for final disposal. An order of assessment was passed on September 21, 1994 in respect of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antage of the said Ordinance, the petitioner submitted an application dated November 24, 2008 under section 4 of the Ordinance. But the said application was rejected by the first respondent by the impugned order, on the ground that the benefit of the Ordinance is available only for the settlement of the arrears of tax, penalty or interest, in respect of which, assessment has been made prior to April 1, 2002 and that it is not available to those made on or after April 1, 2002. Aggrieved by such a hyper-technical objection, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. At the outset, the impugned order suffers from an incorrect interpretation to section 4. Section 4 extracted above makes it clear that the benefit of the Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de prior to April 1, 2002, under the relevant Act. It therefore, follows that it would apply to case wherein the original assessment had been made prior to April 1, 2002 and modification made in the original assessment subsequent to the appeal order, even though after April 1, 2002, would also come under this category. Therefore, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
