9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Act ). 2. The reason for rejecting the application is on the ground that the petitioner has not paid 90% of the amount payable under Section 6(3) of the Settlement Act, along with the application and therefore, the application is liable to be summarily rejected. 3. Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order is dated 24.09.2014, whereas the Writ Petition has been filed on 04.05.2018 and there is an inordinate delay and laches and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. At the first blush, the argument of the learned Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Pandian Industries vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT), & Anr., W.A.(MD).No.396 of 2011, dated 08.01.2018, wherein the Writ Petitioner having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under the Settlement Act, the application was rejected under Section 6(3) of the Act and the challenge to the said order of rejection was upheld by the Writ Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner having not complied with the statutory requirement, the application is to be summarily rejected and therefore, the impugned order is sustainable in law. 5. Ms.R.Charulatha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is arbitrary, as the first respondent has ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the first respondent in arriving at the admitted tax due figure. Further, it is submitted that even assuming, without conceding that there is a short payment as alleged under Rule 3(5) of the Settlement Rules, the respondent ought to have returned the application and granted 10 days time in terms of the statutory Rule. On the above grounds, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent for recomputing the actual tax due after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. This Court had an occasion to consider a batch of cases arising under the Settlement Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to pay not only 40 percent of the arrears of tax pending collection assessed on best of judgment due to non-production of accounts or non-filing of declaration, but also the arrears of tax admitted in the returns. Since the assessment itself was on best of judgment basis, the designated authority proceeded to calculate the amount payable and based on that rejected the applications. The procedural infirmity went to the root of the matter. The orders passed by the designated authority rejecting the dealer's applications were liable to be set aside with a direction to the designated authority to re-consider the entire matter in terms of the scheme of the Act. 8. As pointed out earlier, the application for settlement filed by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
