9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical purposes, the payment effected by the petitioner by paying 10% of the penalty and 25% of the interest as provided for under Section 7(c) of the Samadhan Act, should date back to 13.11.2006 - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, who shall take on file the application for settlement - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.6653 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner is a Workers Cooperative Society, called In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n W.P.No.16642 of 2003. The Hon ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.09.2004, set aside the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to dispose of the petition for waiver dated 18.03.2002. 4.While the matter stood thus, the Tamil Nadu Government enacted the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the Samadhan Act ), which provided for the dealers to file application for settlement of the cases. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application on 13.11.2006 before the first respondent/the Designated Authority under the Samadhan Act. 5.In terms of Section 7 of the Samadhan Act, the rate applicable in determining the amount payable has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter which the first respondent issued notice dated 29.09.2008, for which, the petitioner submitted their reply on 21.10.2008, pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed. The reasons assigned in the impugned order is only in the last paragraph, which says that the amount having not been paid along with the application, it cannot be entertained. 8.The stand taken by the first respondent is incorrect, owing to the fact that at the time, when the petitioner s application was rejected by order dated 03.07.2007, the petitioner had no prior notice of the proceedings. The Samadhan Act provides for a self-assessment in the sense that it is the dealer, who has to decide at the first instance as to whether his application will fall under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical purposes, the payment effected by the petitioner by paying 10% of the penalty and 25% of the interest as provided for under Section 7(c) of the Samadhan Act, should date back to 13.11.2006. This is all the more because, the petitioner had already paid the entire tax under Section 7(a) of the Samadhan Act. 12.For all the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, who shall take on file the application for settlement, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
