9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Single Judge, reads as under:- "12. The petitioner falls within Section 7(b) of the Settlement Act and the 90% payable would have to be computed in line therewith as has been done by the designated authority. The sum total of the demand thus is of a amount of Rs.13,04,279/-. As against the amount of Rs.13,04,279/-, the petitioner has admittedly remitted a sum of Rs.27,46,034/-, which is more than double of the demand payable. Retaining the demands payable for the periods 1994-95 and 1995- 96, of an amount of Rs.13,04,279, the balance shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. As a consequence of my order as aforesaid, the attachment of the property in question shall stand lifted forthwith". 4. The prayer in the respective Writ Petitions are similar. Only the amount offered by the respondent and assessment year are different. For the sake of clarity, the prayer in W.P.No.2781 of 2020 is reproduced sample below as a representative sample:- "Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to proceedings of the Respondent in R.C.No.6363/2019/B3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whereas, in the writ petition, the respondent in his writ petition tacitly admitted a liability of Rs.62,05,701/- (27,46,304 + Rs.34,59,397/-) in a bid to settle the sales tax arrears under the provisions of the Settlement Act, 2010. 9. Thus, the scope of dispute in the above writ petitions was confined to only Rs.6,89,523/- (68,95,224-62,05,701) as detailed below:- Amount agreed to be paid by the Respondent Amount in dispute in the WP 62,05,701 (27,46,304 + 34,59,397) 6,89,523 (68,95,224 - 62,05,701) 10. However, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has ordered retention of a sum of Rs.13,04,279/- only, even though the respondent himself prayed that the appellants should be directed to accept a sum of Rs.34,59,397/- over and above a sum of Rs.27,46,304/- deposited by the respondent in a bid to settle the arrears of tax liability under the provisions of the Settlement Act, 2010. 11. By the impugned order, the respondent has got an unexpected windfall by way of refund of Rs.14,41,755/- [27,46,034 - 13,04,279], which the respondent himself also did not aspire while filing the above writ petitions. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent purchased a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property shall be borne and paid by the purchaser without any reference to the vendor". 19. The recital from the above sale deed makes it clear that the purchaser of the property in the auction held on 01.12.2009 was to pay taxes and other statutory liability found in respect of the property without reference to TIIC. 20. After purchasing the property in auction and after execution of the sale deed dated 10.08.2010, the respondent herein filed applications on 25.08.2010 under Section 5(1) of the Settlement Act, 2010 to settle the tax arrears and for waiver of penalty and interest for the following assessment years under the repealed TNGST Act, 1959 and the CST Act, 1956 in respect of which the said borrower was in arrears of tax:- Date Assessment year Amount 31.01.1990 1990-1991 Rs.3,45,805/- 19.01.1993 1991-1992 Rs.4,01,918/- 16.03.1998 1992-1993 Rs.7,19,315/- 03.04.1998 1993-1994 Rs.5,88,800/- 27.02.1998 1994-1995 Rs.5,05,968/- 27.03.1997 1995-1996 Rs. 85,263/- 16.03.1996 1992-1993 Rs.99,235/- 21. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the respondent did not have the original assessment records, and therefore the tax amount due was calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y dated 28.09.2019 to the Show Cause Notice dated 08.09.2011 and expressed willingness to pay the balance amount. 29. Thus, an order dated 23.10.2019 was passed by the first appellant herein. By the aforesaid order the first appellant rejected the applications filed by the respondent citing non-payment of 90% of amount payable as per Section 6(3) of the Act. 30. Additionally, it was also observed that the respondent was not eligible to file the application as the respondent was not a "dealer" under the respective tax enactment. 31. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2019 the respondent filed the above mentioned writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2775, 2788, 2780, 2781, 2784, 2785 & 2787 of 2020 which has culminated in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 32. It was submitted by the respondent before the writ court that the rejection order was arbitrary as the Show Cause Notice dated 08.09.2011 did not mention a word about the eligibility of the respondent to file application under the Settlement Act, 2010. 33. It was further submitted that when the court in W.P.Nos. 817 to 823 of 2011 had accepted that the respondent has stepped into the shoes of the original assessee and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006 was there. There was a specific bar for filing an application for settling the dues on a person who had availed deferral and had defaulted. However, under the Settlement Act, 2010, such a restriction is not there. Therefore, under the provisions of the Settlement Act, 2010, the defaulter namely Tvl.Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. would have been entitled to file an application to settle the case. 41. The benefit of the Settlement Act, 2010 is confined only to a person who was and is a "dealer" as defined in the relevant Act as is evident from a reading of Section (2)(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act. The definition reads as under:- Section 2(1)(a) : "applicant" means a dealer as defined in the relevant Act. 42. The expression "relevant Act" has been defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Settlement Act, 2010 as follows:- Section 2(1)(e) : "relevant Act" means,- (i)the repealed Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (ii)the repealed Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971; (iii)the repealed Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970; (iv) the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and includes the rules made or notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tvl. Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd were produced. 51. The respondent has purchased litigated property knowing fully well that there were arrears/ tax dues from the said defaulter Tvl.Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. to the Commercial Tax Department. The above company was a tax defaulter under the deferral scheme sanctioned vide deferral orders dated 20.06.1991 and 30.06.1993, which was given as an interest free loan. 52. The respondent's own case before the learned Single Judge was to direct the appellants to accept a sum of Rs.34,59,379/- over and above Rs.27,46,304/- already paid by the respondent before filing writ petitions along with applications filed under the Settlement Act, 2010. 53. Thus, the respondent himself agreed to pay a sum of Rs.62,05,701/- (Rs.34,59,379/- + Rs.27,46,394/-) as against a sum of Rs.68,95,224/- (Rs.27,46,304/- + Rs.34,59,397/-) determined in the impugned orders dated 23.10.2019 of the first appellant which were challenged before the writ court in W.P.Nos. 2784, 2775, 2780, 2781, 2788, 2785 & 2787 of 2020. 54. Even if the writ petition was to be allowed, the respondent could have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.34,59,379/- over and above Rs.27,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
