9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paid 90% of the amount payable under Section 7 of the Act along with the applications and proposed to reject the applications under Section 6(3) of the Settlement Act - Held that: - the impugned orders have been passed on account of total non-application of mind and without appreciating the scope and object of the Settlement Act. The assessment for the relevant years 1997-1998 and 1991-1992 should be revised and there was a statutory duty on the part of the Assessing Officer to pass the revised assessment orders and for reasons best known, the Assessing Officer has not done so, therefore, the dealer cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the designated authority under the Settlement Act sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, dated 01.06.2010, brought about a scheme for settlement of the arrears of sales tax and enacted the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Settlement Act ). The petitioner filed applications under the Settlement Act, dated 30.12.2010. The applications filed by the petitioner were put in cold storage by the competent authority under the Settlement Act, viz., the 3rd respondent and after about five years show cause notices were issued to the petitioner for the assessment years 1997-1998 and 1991-1992, dated 19.12.2015 and 11.01.2016 stating that the petitioner has not paid 90% of the amount payable under Section 7 of the Act along with the applications and proposed to reject the applications u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 5638 to 8415 of 2014 etc. batch, wherein, among other issues, the issue as to whether the applications under the Settlement Act could be rejected on the grounds as stated in the impugned orders was also considered. In fact, in the said order, this Court after taking note of the provisions of the Act elaborated upon the procedure to be adopted by the designated authority under the Act while examining an application under the Settlement Act. 5. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the operative portion of the order in W.P.(MD) Nos. 5638 to 8415 of 2014 etc. batch, dated 03.09.2014, wherein this Court in paragraph Nos. 21 to 24 has held as follows:- 21. In terms of the above provisions, the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt payable, which at the first instance is on the dealer/applicant. In terms of Section 6(1), the designated authority is bound to verify the correctness of the particulars furnished in the application made under Section 5 with reference to all relevant records and determine the amount payable at the rate specified in Section 7. 23. Therefore, at that stage the designated authority has to verify as to whether the rates as calculated by the petitioner while submitting application under Section 7 was correct. In the event the designated authority finds any discrepancy, in terms of Section 6(2), shall demand further amount payable in the form prescribed. However, there is an important rider in sub-section 2 to Section 6, which states tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcising power, under Section 6(1) by taking into consideration relevant records and then determine the amount payable at the rates specified in Section 7. It is a settled legal principle that any Settlement Act or amnesty scheme have to be strictly interpreted and there cannot be any substitution or reading down the provision and the dealer/applicant cannot seek for reliefs beyond the scope of the scheme of the Settlement Act. 24. Apart from the above referred provisions, Section 8 of the Act deals with settlement of arrears and issuance of certificate. If the authority is satisfied about the payment of amount determined under Section 6(1), by an order, settle the arrears of tax, penalty or interest and issue a certificate in such form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment assessment orders and remanded the matter to the assessing officer and there is no order of assessment in force and therefore the question of settlement does not arise. As far as these category of cases are concerned, it is relevant to note that this Court in the case of Anitha Plastics (cited supra) held that the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit merely because the order was passed after remand. As a matter of fact, the fresh order passed after remand, should be taken to have been passed, only because of the appellate authority finding fault with the original order. In such circumstances, the benefit of the scheme could not be denied to the petitioner and the said decision has also been followed in the case of M/s.S.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
