Pending revision enables settlement application under Tamil Nadu tax dispute scheme, even after relief before first appeal.

An assessee may seek settlement under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 if a qualifying appeal or revision relating to the assessment was filed on or before 28 February 2002 and remained pending on the application date. Eligibility is not confined to proceedings initiated by the assessee; a pending suo motu revision by the Revenue satisfies the statutory requirement. The fact that the assessee had succeeded before the first appellate authority does not bar settlement where the revision could still result in adverse consequences. The scheme is aimed at expeditious resolution of tax disputes, and the application was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee can seek settlement under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 when a suo motu revision initiated by the Revenue was pending, even though the assessee had succeeded before the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The eligibility condition under section 4(1)(i) requires that an appeal or revision relating to the assessment must have been filed on or before 28 February 2002 and must be pending on the date of the application under section 5. The provision speaks broadly of an appeal or revision and does not restrict eligibility to proceedings initiated by the assessee alone. The pendency of a revision before the revisional authority is the material requirement, and the source of that pending proceeding is not determinative. The fact that the assessee had obtained relief before the first appellate authority did not end the dispute, because the Revenue had already invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction and adverse consequences could still follow if the revision succeeded. The settlement scheme was intended to achieve expeditious resolution of tax disputes, and the assessee's application was consistent with that object.

Conclusion: The assessee was eligible to apply for settlement under section 5, and the rejection of the application was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the assessee's entitlement to have the settlement application entertained was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of settlement under the Act, the decisive requirement is the existence of a qualifying pending appeal or revision on the relevant date, and eligibility is not confined to proceedings initiated by the assessee.

---