Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 462 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxEligibility for filing application under settlement of dispute scheme - Recovery of sales tax arrears - attachment of property - settlement of dispute - whether respondent was a “dealer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) r/w Section 2(1)(e) of the Settlement Act, 2010 and therefore eligible to file a declaration under the Settlement Act, 2010 or whether the respondent stepped into the shoes of the tax defaulter namely Tvl.Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., while purchasing the assets of the defaulter in an auction? HELD THAT:- Prior to Settlement Act, 2010, 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 - To be eligible for the benefit of the Settlement Act, 2010, the person should have been a "dealer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) r/w Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act. The respondent herein (i.e.petitioner in W.P.Nos.2784, 2775, 2780, 2781, 2788, 2785 & 2787 of 2020) was not a "dealer". The respondent has also not stepped into the shoes of the defaulting dealer viz. Tvl.Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., to avail the benefit of the Settlement Act, 2010 - The respondent has also not produced any documents to substantiate that the respondent was a "dealer" for the purpose of Section 2(1)(a) r/w Section 2(1)(e) of the Act - The respondent herein was merely an auction purchaser who purchased the stressed asset of defaulter Tvl. Srinivasa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. in "as is where is condition" for a bid amount of Rs.70,00,000/- in the auction held on 01.12.2009 by the TIIC. Considering the fact that concession was given by entertaining the applications filed by the respondent under the aforesaid Act and considering the fact that the order of the Designated Authority was not challenged by the Commercial Tax Department in the manner known to law, we do not wish to deny the partial benefit conferred on the respondent vide impugned order dated 29.04.2021 under the Settlement Act, 2010 - the direction in the impugned order of the Court directing a refund of Rs.14,41,755/- out of Rs.27,46,304/- paid by the respondent deserves to be interfered. The order of the learned Single Judge directing appropriation of the amounts only to those years for which assessment orders were available cannot be countenanced. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed and it is directed that the respondent should pay the differential sum of Rs.41,48,920/- (68,95,224 - 27,46,304) to the Commercial Tax Department within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
|