Settlement jurisdiction is limited to inconsistent assessments on the same entry, not lawful changes in tax rates.

Settlement under Explanation (b) to Section 8B(2) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act was confined to cases where a notice of demand arose from inconsistency in assessment of the same taxing entry. Where the later assessment applied a changed statutory entry and the higher rate resulted from a lawful amendment, the dispute did not fall within the settlement machinery. The provision could not be used to override a valid change in tax structure or to enlarge the Commission's jurisdiction. On that basis, applications for settlement were not maintainable and rejection of the applications was held to be in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners' applications for settlement under Section 8B of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were maintainable when the later assessment reflected a higher tax rate because of a change in the statutory entry and not because of any inconsistency in interpretation of the same provision.

Analysis: Explanation (b) to Section 8B(2) applies only where a notice of demand arises from an assessment inconsistent with an earlier assessment due to different rates or non-admissibility of a claim, and the qualifying words make it clear that the inconsistency must arise despite no amendment or alteration in the relevant provision or schedule during the relevant period. Where the later assessment correctly applies a changed statutory entry and the applicable rate of tax is lawfully different because the law itself changed, the matter is not an inconsistency of the kind contemplated by the settlement provision. The settlement machinery is meant to resolve disputes about applicability of tax rates on the same entry, not to override a lawful change in the tax structure. The timing of the amendment was a matter of legislative policy and could not enlarge the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The applications were not maintainable before the Settlement Commission and the rejection of the applications was in law. The decision is in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Settlement jurisdiction under Explanation (b) to Section 8B(2) is confined to genuine inconsistencies arising from differing interpretations of the same taxing entry and does not extend to assessments made on the basis of a lawful change in the applicable rate of tax.

---