TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing assessee and just the purchaser of the property in question. The revenue had also not also indicated clearly either in the impugned order or in the communications leading to the passing of the impugned orders the details and breakup of the original tax, interest and penalty. Thus, it was felt that furnishing of the assessment orders would provide clarity as required. On 25.01.2021, learned revenue counsel confirmed that orders of assessment were available only for two years i.e. 1994-95 and 1995-96 and efforts were ongoing to procure the remaining orders. Since the existence of valid orders of assessment passed under the provisions of the Act is a pre-condition for raising of a demand, time was granted to the Department to produce th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had defaulted in the repayment of the financial assistance received, the property was brought to sale by TIIC by tender-cum-open-auction on 01.12.2009 and the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. The sale consideration was a sum of ₹ 70 lakhs and sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2010. Possession of the movables and immovales have been taken by the petitioner. 2. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The request was denied on the ground that an encumbrance was registered on the property by the Commercial Taxes Department. The petitioner thus approached the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes/R2, seeking lifting of the attachment and was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the rejection is that the petitioner was not a 'dealer' as required under the Settlement Act and also that the amount paid did not satisfy the condition that 90% of the settlement amount has to be remitted along with the application. The 90% of computation in this case, is in relation to the amount due under all seven applications. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the above orders and raising various grounds in support thereof. I hardly need to advert to all the grounds filed for the reason that, at the hearing on 25.01.2021, I had directed learned revenue counsel to serve copies of the assessment orders upon the petitioner in order that one may obtain clarity on the demands raised. This was specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question barring 1994-95 and 1995-96. It is for the reason that I do not see the necessity to advert to the other grounds raised by the petitioner as this one fact would be sufficient to decide the challenge to the impugned orders. 9. It is a sine qua non that a demand under revenue statute can be raised and enforced only if it is preceded by a valid order of assessment. In the present case, we are concerned only with the demands raised under orders of assessment for the periods 1994-95 and 1995-96 in respect of which impugned orders dated 23.10.2019, quantify the demands at figures of ₹ 11,85,987/- and ₹ 1,18,292/- respectively and thus I proceed to determine the issue based on the aforesaid determination. 10. As fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest at six per cent per annum on the arrears of tax and on such payment of tax, the balance of tax and interest and the entire penalty shall be waived. 8.(1) The designated authority shall, on being satisfied about the payment of the amount determined under sub-section (1) of section 6, by an order, settle the arrears of tax, penalty or interest and issue a certificate in such form as may be prescribed, and thereupon, the applicant shall be discharged from his liability to make payment of the balance amount of such arrears of tax, penalty or interest. Separate certificate shall be issued in respect of each application. 12. The petitioner falls within Section 7(b) of the Settlement Act and the 90% payable would have to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
