9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the arrears as against the said mandate of 90% of the arrears - In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be termed as mere omission or defect so as to attract Rule 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Rules, 2008. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant / writ petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions and the first respondent, in exercise of the power under Section 6(3) of the Act, has rightly rejected the application - petition dismissed. - W.A(MD)No.396 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2018 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA For the Appellant : Mr.A.S.Mujubur Rahaman For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penalty Rs.1,93,932.00 Interest Rs.1,62,024.00 The appellant would aver that the Government has passed an ordinance viz., Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?), in and by which the provisions are made for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest. The father of the appellant, after the submission of the application, died on 23.09.2009. Thereafter, by order dated 12.11.2010, the first respondent has returned the application, dated 25.11.2008, submitted by the father of the appellant, on the ground that as per Section 6(3) of the Act, the dealer has to pay 90% of the amount payable along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to advert to the relevant statutory rules and erroneously came to the conclusion to dismiss the writ petition and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the impugned orders. 5. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the payment of 90% of arrears as contemplated under Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be termed as a defect or omission and it is a mandate cast upon the assessee and admittedly, the father of the appellant / writ petitioner at the time of submission of Form No.1 application dated 28.11.2008 did not remit the entire arrears and he has remitted only 63% of the arrears and therefore, the first respondent has rightly rejected the said application. The learned Judge has also taken note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount payable under Section 7, along with the application, the designated authority shall summarily reject the application. Admittedly, the father of the appellant has paid only 63% of the arrears as against the said mandate of 90% of the arrears. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be termed as mere omission or defect so as to attract Rule 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Rules, 2008. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant / writ petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions and the first respondent, in exercise of the power under Section 6(3) of the Act, has rightly rejected the application and the learned Judge has taken note of the statutory provisions and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
