Tax settlement eligibility turns on arrear tax in dispute, not on a mismatch between appeal and application figures.

Eligibility under a tax settlement scheme is not defeated merely because the disputed arrear tax stated in the settlement application is lower than the figure shown in the memorandum of appeal. Once the statutory preconditions are met-an assessment exists and an appeal or revision concerning that assessment is pending-the authority must examine whether arrear tax is in dispute in the pending proceeding. The amount paid may affect computation of the settlement sum, but it does not determine the existence of a live dispute. A dealer should not be denied the statutory benefit on a technical mismatch in figures, and the settlement application must be reconsidered on the basis of the arrear tax in dispute disclosed there.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer otherwise eligible under the settlement scheme could be denied the benefit merely because the amount of arrear tax in dispute stated in the settlement application was lower than the amount shown in the memorandum of appeal, and whether the refusal order was sustainable.

Analysis: The settlement scheme required that an assessment must exist and an appeal or revision relating to that assessment must be pending within the prescribed period. Once those conditions were satisfied, the authority had to examine whether arrear tax was in dispute in the pending proceeding. The scheme did not require the settlement application to reproduce the same figure of dispute as stated in the appeal memo. The amount paid may be relevant for computing the settlement amount, but it does not control the existence of arrear tax in dispute. A dealer who had paid tax in excess of the amount ultimately claimed as payable was not to be denied the statutory benefit solely because the settlement application reflected the disputed arrear tax on the basis of the admitted liability rather than the entire assessed amount. Denial on that ground would create an unreasonable distinction between similarly placed dealers and defeat the object of the settlement scheme.

Conclusion: The dealer was eligible to apply under the settlement scheme, and the refusal based only on the variation between the appeal figure and the settlement figure was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The refusal order and show-cause notice were set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the settlement application afresh after hearing the dealer, with the settlement computation to be made on the basis of the arrear tax in dispute disclosed in the settlement application.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under a tax settlement scheme is not defeated by a difference between the amount disputed in appeal and the amount shown in the settlement application, so long as arrear tax in dispute exists in the pending proceeding and the statutory preconditions are otherwise satisfied.

---