9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act would show that whatever payments paid towards the disputed tax could very well be reckoned for payment towards the dispute regarding penalty because what is directed to be paid is 25% of such 50% of the tax in dispute - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.25122 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Ramanathan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the application filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Samadhan Scheme. 4.The 2nd respondent, in the written instruction given to the learned Special Government Pleader dated 15.02.2005, has reiterated the stand taken in the impugned order. At this juncture, it has to be seen as to whether in spite of the embargo under Section 6(4), the petitioner would be entitled to seek for adjustment. Admittedly, the petitioner has not sought for refund. The answer to the question lies in Section 7 of the Act. For better appreciation, the provision is quoted herein below: 7.(1)The amount under sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be determined as follows:- (a)Where it relates to any tax in dispute, at the rate of fifty percentum of the tax in dispute: or (b)Where it relates to any tax and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reckoned for payment towards the dispute regarding penalty because what is directed to be paid is 25% of such 50% of the tax in dispute. Therefore, the impugned order has to be necessarily set aside. 6.However, after the matter was heard and the order was in process of being dictated, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced before this Court an order passed by the 1st respondent dated 08.06.2010, from which, it is seen a Certificate of Settlement of Arrears in Form No.V under Rule 5(1) has been issued by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (North) Division, Chennai 6. 7.In the light of the above, though nothing requires to be adjudicated in the writ petition, the Court having heard the parties has rendered its opinion on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
