TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 7(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. The provision of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 is to be read plainly without any addition or deletion - Though the settlement of dispute is to prejudice of the revenue, nevertheless it is on account of the defect in the method prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Though, the petitioner benefits by being a lesser amount under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002, nevertheless it is purely on account of the defect in the Act. The benefit which flows from such defective drafting of the Act cannot be denied based on the presumed and assured intention of the legislature. Unless the law was amended, the benefit of such enactment cannot be denied - the impugned order passed by the respondent is unsustainable - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.35391 of 2005 (O.P.No.1181 of 2003) - - - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : M/s.M.Inbarajan For the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent to accept the application filed by the petitioner and issue a certificate in Form IV in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made under and quash the impugned order dated 13.9.2002. 9. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has worked for the amount payable under the settlement scheme on 50% of the total tax due and 25% of the said 50% as penalty which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the scheme under the Act. 10. According to the respondent, the petitioner has to pay additional amount of ₹ 1,04,516/-which is 15% of the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) and 22 (2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 in terms of Section 7(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision has to be read plainly and there is nothing to be intended by asking the petitioner to pay amounts separately towards the penalty imposed under Section 12(3) and 22(2) of the TNGST Act, 1959. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case, the court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied as a result of levy of tax would fall under Section 7(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 and cases of tax and penalty would fall under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. It is submitted that amount of ₹ 7,09,875/- relates to penalty and not penalty levied as a result of the tax assessed and therefore the petitioner was additionally liable to pay sum of ₹ 1,04,516/-under Section 7(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 17. This is a case where the disputed tax is lesser than the penalty imposed as a result of which if the case is settled in Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002, amount payable by the petitioner is far below 15% of the penalty that would have been payable by the petitioner if the case was pertaining to penalty simplicitor and was to be settled under Section 7(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 18. The provision of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 is to be read plainly without any addition or deletion. Though the settlement of disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax. In this regard paras 32, 33 and 34 of the opinion rendered in Shabina Abraham [ Shabina Abraham v. CCE , (2015) 10 SCC 770 : (2015) 322 ELT 372] would commend to us for recapitulation and, therefore, are extracted below: - 32 . The impugned judgment in the present case has referred to Elis C. Reid case [ CIT v. Elis C. Reid , 1930 SCC OnLine Bom 58 : AIR 1931 Bom 333] but has not extracted the real ratio contained therein. It then goes on to say that this is a case of short levy which has been noticed during the lifetime of the deceased and then goes on to state that equally therefore legal representatives of a manufacturer who had paid excess duty would not by the self-same reasoning be able to claim such excess amount paid by the deceased. Neither of these reasons are reasons which refer to any provision of law. Apart from this, the High Court went into morality and said that the moral principle of unlawful enrichment would also apply and since the law will not permit this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
