9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and also is unsustainable on the reason that such rejection cannot be made after a period of nearly 5 years especially, when the Revenue is bound to inform the petitioner to make the deficit Tax if any, to be paid within a period of 10 days. In the absence of any such communication, the petitioner cannot be faulted on any account. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent has not passed any order so far. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No. 25371 of 2018 in W.M.P.No. 29517 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu For the Petitioner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent to the introduction of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act 2010, the petitioner filed Form I and paid a sum of ₹ 3,29,085/- on 13.12.2010. The petitioner was under the bonafied impression that the issue has been settled under the above said Samadhan Act and they would be issued with certificate under Section 8 of the said Act. However, after a period of five years, the first respondent issued a notice dated 12.01.2015, to show cause as to why the settlement arrears of proposals could not be rejected. The petitioner filed their objection on 11.03.2015, reiterating the contentions already raised, also by stating that if the mistake was pointed out in the year 2010 itself, they would have remitted the balance amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to reject the application by way of the present impugned order dated 30.08.2018. 4. Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that it is true that the petitioner was not called upon to pay the deficit tax within the time stipulated under the above said rules and that the said application was kept pending for nearly five years. He further submitted fairly that the issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the petitioner in the order made in W.P.No.11956 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018, where the learned Judge, under similar circumstances, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the first respondent to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any such communication, the petitioner cannot be faulted on any account. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent has not passed any order so far. Further, it is seen that under similar circumstances, the learned Judge of this Court passed an order in W.P.No.11956 of 2018 wherein at paragraphs nos. 8, 10 11 is stated as follows: 8. As pointed out earlier, the application for settlement filed by the petitioner was kept pending for three years and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make out any deficit (assuming so), the first respondent should not have rejected the application, especially when, Rule 3(5) provides for 10 days time to be granted for making good the deficit, if any. Apart from that, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
