9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be passed by the first respondent against the writ petitioner. This revised assessment order is dated 27.02.2009 and bears Reference No.TNGST No:2100818/05-06. This revised assessment order was made under TNGST Act. c) Writ petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the aforesaid revised assessment order dated 27.02.2009. Statutory appeal is on the file of the second respondent. Statutory appeal is AP No.1034 of 2009 and it was filed before the second respondent on 20.07.2009. d) When the aforesaid statutory appeal before the second respondent was pending, an Act which goes by the name 'The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011' (Act No.29 of 2011), which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Samadhan Act' came into force on and with effect from 01.11.2011. e) Samadhan Act provided for expedient settlement of arrears of tax, penalty, interest etc., under TNGST Act. f) Writ petitioner filed an application before the third respondent under Section 5(1) of Samadhan Act on 29.03.2012. g) Third respondent sent the aforesaid application of the writ petitioner under Samadhan Act to first respondent to verify the correctness, eligibility and ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. d) The aforesaid argument was predicated on proviso to Section 8(2) of Samthan Act, which reads as follows: '8. Settlement of arrears and issue of certificate.- (1) ..... (2) The designated authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may refuse to settle the arrears of tax, penalty or interest; Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such refusal.' e) A perusal of proviso to Section 8(2) of Samadhan Act makes it clear that it is statutorily imperative that the third respondent gives reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner for showing cause against refusal before passing the impugned order. There is no disputation or disagreement that this was not done. Therefore, the second point straight away stands answered in favour of the writ petitioner. f) This itself is the end of the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this one ground. g) However, considering the significance of the first point that has been raised, with the objective of making this order as comprehensive as possible, this Court now embarks upon the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads us to J.K.Iron and Steel Company Limited case decided by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported in AIR 1956 SC 231 [J.K.Iron and Steel Co. Limited Vs. Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union]. m) J.K.Iron and steel company case was penned by Hon'ble Justice Vivian Bose for the Larger Bench of three Judges. Most relevant paragraph is paragraph 23 and the same reads as follows: '23. All the same, wide as their powers are, these Tribunals are not absolute and there are limitations to the ambit of their authority. In Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. [(1950) SCR 459, 497] this Court held by a majority that though these Tribunals are not Courts in the strict sense of the term they have to discharge quasi-judicial functions and as such are subject to the overriding jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Their powers are derived from the statute that creates them and they have to function within the limits imposed there and to act according to its provisions. Those provisions invest them with many of the "trappings" of a court and deprive them of arbitrary or absolute discretion and power. There is, in our opinion, an eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be, under the relevant Act in respect of which a certificate is issued under Section 8, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date of making of the application by the applicant under subsection (1) of section 5. Any order passed by the assessing authority or appellate authority or revisional authority subsequent to the date of filing of application for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest, resulting in claim for refund of amount paid upto the time of settlement of such arrears of tax, penalty or interest under this Act, will not be taken into consideration.' (Underlining and double underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and to highlight) s) A careful perusal of Sections 4 and 10 of Samadhan Act brings into sharp focus that Samadhan Act has consciously used the terms 'Court' and 'Appellate Authority'. While in Section 4 of Samadhan Act, legislature in its wisdom has thought fit to use the term 'Court', the term 'Appellate Authority' has been used in Section 10. It makes it clear that the two terms have not been used interchangeably or synonymously and that the legislature in its wisdom has clearly unders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
