TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the date of filing of monthly returns. The emphasis on bonafide conduct of an assessee made by the Division Bench in EID Parry is completely absent in this case. This case is governed not merely by the statutory provisions relating to payment of interest, but also by the agreement executed by the appellant with reference to the interest free deferral scheme. A person who had collected tax from the customers and allowed to retain it under a deferred payment scheme, cannot claim that he would pay 40% of what was collected by him together with interest calculated from the date of assessment. This is not the purport of the Samadhan Scheme. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 498 to 507 of 2015, M P (MD)Nos.1 of 2015 in 498 to 507 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - V. Ramasubramanian And N. Kirubakaran, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs R Hema Latha For the Respondents : Mr K Chellapandian, Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Mr R Karthikeyan, Addl Govt Pleader JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J. These writ appeals are by the assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short TNGST Act ) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessments under the CST Act were concerned, the appellant did not either file Form-F Declarations or filed Form-C Declarations with discrepancies. In some cases, Form-C Declarations were not filed. 10. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed orders dated 08.06.2001, 24.05.2002, 20.10.2010, 20.10.2010, 20.10.2010 and 11.11.2011 under the CST Act, relating, respectively, to Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. 11. Likewise, the Assessing Officer passed separate orders dated 20.10.2010, 20.10.2010, 11.11.2010 and 11.11.2010 under the TNGST Act, relating to the Assessment Years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. 12. As against the six assessment orders passed under the CST Act and the four assessment orders passed under the TNGST Act, the appellant filed four petitions before the Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act in relation to Assessments under the CST Act for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. They also filed four similar applications under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act in relation to the assessments under TNGST Act for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24.03.2015, all the 10 writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. Therefore, the appellant has come up with these 10 writ appeals. 19. Before we look into the grievance of the appellant, it is necessary to have a look at the Scheme of T.N.Act 29/2011. This Act, as we have pointed out earlier, provides for the settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest, pertaining to sales tax. The Act comprises of 15 Sections. Section 1 provides the short title, extent and commencement. Section 2 provides Definitions. Section 3 provides for appointment of a Designated Authority for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 4 speaks about the eligibility for settlement. As per this Section, an application for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest, if they relate to the Assessment Years upto 2006-2007, could be made, provided the assessment has been made prior to 01.08.2011 and also subject to the further condition that an appeal or revision is not pending before any court on the date of filing the application. 20. Section 5 speaks about the method of filing an application for settlement. Section 6 indicates the method of determination of amount p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Section 12 deals with revocation of the certificate. The other provisions may not be of any relevance for our purpose and hence we are not dealing with the same. 23. As we have stated earlier, Section 7 indicates the amount payable by an applicant and the amounts that could be waived. The four situations contemplated under Section 7 and the amount payable under each one of those situations for entertaining an application under the Scheme are presented in a Tabular Column, as follows. Sl. No. Situations Amount payable 1. Where it relates to arrears of tax assessed on the best of judgment due to nonproduction of accounts. 40% of arrears of tax pending collection on the date of application, along with interest at 7.5%. 2. Where it relates to arrears of tax, including any arrears of tax approved due to non filing of declaration forms which was in excess of the tax admitted as per the returns. 40% of such arrears of tax along with interest at 7.5 per cent. 3. Where it relates to arrears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 1999-2000 Declaration in Form-F and other documents for claiming exemption for Inter-State transactions on consignment basis were not filed. 2 2000-2001 There was a discrepancy between the discount reflected in the ' ' Form and the discount entered in the Accounts Statement. 3 2003-2004 C-Form Declarations not obtained and produced for the entire Inter- State Sales Turnover of nearly ₹ 87 lakhs. 4 2004-2005 C-Form and F-Form Declarations for the Inter-State Sales Turnover of more than ₹ 3.23 Crores were not produced. 5 2005-2006 C-Form and F-Form Declarations for the Inter-State Sales Turnover of more than 1.64 Crores were not furnished. 6 2006-2007 C-Form and F-Form Declarations for the Inter-State Sales Turnover were not furnished. 28. Interestingly, the appellant did not file appeals against the six orders of assessment under the CST Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act 29/2011, in case he wants to avail the benefit under the Scheme. 34. Let us now take for instance a dishonest tax payer, according to whose returns he is due to pay admitted tax to the extent of ₹ 100/-. If based upon an inspection by the Enforcement Wing or upon the happening of some other event, the Department discovers turnover which escaped assessment, leading to the initiation of proceedings and the passing of best of judgment assessment order, leading to a claim for tax to the extent of ₹ 120/-, he will be entitled to the benefit, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, of Section 7(a). As a consequence, he will only pay 40% of the said amount of ₹ 120/-, namely ₹ 48/-. 35. This result is not what is contemplated by clause (a) and (c) of Section 7 of T.N.Act 29/2011. The Act does not intend to punish the honest and put a premium for a dishonest conduct. 36. Apart from the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both clauses (a) and (c) of Section 7 cannot be invoked simultaneously, cannot be accepted for two more reasons. They are: (i) At least in six out of eight cases, where the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd condition stipulated under Section 4 was satisfied. But some of these assessment orders were set aside by the Special Committee on applications filed under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act and the matters remanded back for passing fresh assessment orders. No fresh orders of assessment were passed before the cut-off date, namely 01.08.2011. Therefore, the second stipulation contained in Section 4 was not satisfied in some cases. 40. The question whether the pendency of an application under Sectio4016-D of the TNGST Act can be taken as equivalent to the pendency of an appeal or revision has not been raised before us. But, let us have a look at what would happen if an application under Section 16-D of TNGST Act is equated to an appeal or revision. 41. If the application under Section 16-D is treated as an appeal or revision, the appellant is not even eligible in terms of Section 4 to apply under the Samadhan Scheme. In case, the application under Section 16-D is not treated as an appeal or revision, even then the order passed thereon on 04.11.2011 by the Special Committee had the effect of setting aside the original orders of assessment passed on best of judgment. Once the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Section 7(b) of 2008 Act, cases relating to arrears of tax which was in excess of the tax admitted as per the returns filed for the year were covered. But, in Section 7(b) of the 2011 Act, the arrears of tax, including the arrears of tax accrued due to non filing of declaration Forms, which was in excess of the tax admitted as per the returns, were covered. Hence it is contended that the difference between the settlement of disputes and settlement of arrears has to be kept in mind, before interpreting Section 7 of the Act. 48. We have carefully considered above submission. We have no difficulty in accepting that the settlement of dispute could be different from the settlement of arrears. In cases of settlement of disputes, the quantum of demand and the quantum of admitted amount may vary. Therefore, the parties may strike a deal for resolving the dispute and it is this deal that becomes known as settlement. But, in cases of settlement of arrears, the term 'settlement' connotes payment or payment terms. 49. But, the distinction stops there. Every Samadhan Scheme has to be understood and interpreted in the light of the provisions contained in the Scheme itself. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot claim interest under Section 24(3). Therefore, the above decision has no application to the cases on hand. 55. In the cases on hand, the appellant had availed the benefit of deferred payment of sales tax under a particular scheme. They committed a breach of the agreement executed with the department. Therefore, as per the agreement and the interest free deferral scheme, they were liable to pay interest from the date of filing of monthly returns. The emphasis on bonafide conduct of an assessee made by the Division Bench in EID Parry is completely absent in this case. This case is governed not merely by the statutory provisions relating to payment of interest, but also by the agreement executed by the appellant with reference to the interest free deferral scheme. A person who had collected tax from the customers and allowed to retain it under a deferred payment scheme, cannot claim that he would pay 40% of what was collected by him together with interest calculated from the date of assessment. This is not the purport of the Samadhan Scheme. 56. Therefore, all the writ appeals are completely devoid of merits. Hence they are dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
