9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o its customers in their restaurants, which were four in number in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is stated that their business has been closed down in the State of Tamil Nadu and they have got only one establishment in Pondicherry, and the Society is reeling in financial difficulties. The petitioner applied for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the TNGST Act ). This was considered and exemption vide notification G.O.P.No.669 dated 21.11.1990, was granted with effect from 01.04.1990. 3.The issue involved in this writ petition is relatable to the assessment for the year 1989-90. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the year 1989-90, and an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, which are under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) in Section 7 of the Samadhan Act. 6.The petitioner classified their case under Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Samadhan Act, and paid the entire arrears of tax pending collection. This application was rejected by order dated 03.07.2007. The first respondent came to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner would fall under Section 7(c) of the Samadhan Act, and not under 7(a) of the Samadhan Act. Therefore, the petitioner having not paid 10% of the penalty and 25% of the interest as payable under Clause (c) of Section 7 of the Samadhan Act, his application was rejected as not being in order. The petitioner did not have any opportunity before such an order was passed. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. The first respondent held that the application falls under Section 7(c) of the Samadahan Act, but instead of returning the application, rejected the same. 9.In somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon ble Division Bench in the case of Chetak Timber Products (P) Ltd., vs. Joint Commissioner and another reported in (2014) 75 VST 481 (Mad), held that when there is a defective application, the Designated Authority should return the application for rectification. 10.In my considered view, if, according to the first respondent, the classification of the petitioner s case should be under Section 7(c) of the Samadhan Act, then the application should have been returned and to be re-presented for compliance of the condition under Section 7(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
