Settlement eligibility depends on a pending appeal or revision at application date; later Tribunal proceedings do not cure ineligibility.

Eligibility for settlement under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 depends on an assessment having been made and the related appeal or revision remaining pending on the date of the settlement application. Where the appeal or revision had already been finally heard or dismissed before that date, section 4(2) bars settlement, and later pendency in a subsequent Tribunal proceeding does not satisfy the statutory . Read with sections 5, 13 and 4A and rules 2(a) and 8(2), the scheme requires the dispute to be pending when the application is made. The later amendment in section 4A was held not to operate retrospectively. The settlement application was therefore rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible to apply for settlement under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 when the original revision before the appellate/revisional forum had already been dismissed before the settlement application was filed, and whether pendency before the later Tribunal proceeding could satisfy the statutory conditions.

Analysis: Eligibility under section 4 depends on an assessment having been made and an appeal or revision relating to it being pending on 31 December 1998 before the appropriate appellate or revisional authority. The bar in section 4(2) operates where the appeal or revision has been finally heard, and the governing date for testing eligibility is the date of the settlement application. Reading sections 4, 5, 13 and 4A together with rules 2(a) and 8(2), the statutory scheme requires the dispute to remain pending and not finally heard when the settlement application is made. The later amendment introducing section 4A had no retrospective effect and could not enlarge eligibility for applications already filed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not eligible to seek settlement, and the rejection of the settlement application was upheld.

---