Filed and pending appeal eligibility under settlement scheme upheld despite defect return and re-presentation.

For eligibility under a settlement scheme requiring an appeal or revision to be "filed and pending," actual filing within the stipulated date and the continued subsistence of the proceeding are sufficient; formal admission is not required unless the statute expressly says so. An appeal returned for defects and later re-presented did not cease to exist or become finally rejected, so it could still be treated as filed and pending. The assessee was therefore entitled to seek settlement under the scheme, and the Tribunal's grant of settlement relief was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, but returned for defects and later re-presented, could be treated as an appeal filed on or before 28 February 2002 and pending so as to satisfy the eligibility condition for settlement under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002.

Analysis: The expression used in section 4 is "filed and pending", and the Act does not use the word "admitted". The Court held that the ordinary meaning of "filed" is delivery of the papers to the proper authority for being kept on record, while "pending" means begun and not finally concluded. The scheme of section 4 shows that eligibility depends on the existence of an appeal or revision that has been filed within the stipulated date and remains pending, and not on its formal admission. The Court further observed that, especially in the case of proceedings before the Special Tribunal, the stage of admission cannot be read into the statute when the legislature has chosen not to use that expression. The fact that the appeal papers were returned for defects and later re-presented did not mean that the appeal had ceased to exist or stood rejected finally.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly treated as filed and pending for the purpose of section 4, and the assessee was entitled to seek settlement under section 5.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the order of the Tribunal granting settlement relief was sustained, and the assessee's application under the settlement scheme remained maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For eligibility under a settlement provision requiring an appeal or revision to be "filed and pending", actual filing within the stipulated date and subsistence of the proceeding are sufficient; formal admission of the appeal is not a necessary condition unless the statute expressly so provides.

---