Disputed interest cannot be treated as admitted liability for settlement filing; deposit condition was held unjustified.

The designated authority under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 could not require deposit of a disputed interest demand as an admitted amount when the assessee had challenged that liability in appeal. The statutory requirement was to deposit only the amount actually admitted to be payable, and the authority therefore acted beyond jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the settlement application on that basis. The Tribunal erred in endorsing that approach. The orders of both authorities were set aside, and the settlement application had to be considered without insisting on any further deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the designated authority under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 could insist on deposit of the disputed interest amount as an admitted amount and refuse to entertain the settlement application on that basis.

Analysis: The application for settlement had been filed under section 5 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 with the requisite fee under section 7. The assessee had challenged the entire interest demand in the appeal and had not admitted liability for that amount. The requirement under the appeal regime was to deposit the amount admitted to be payable and not the amount specifically disputed. The designated authority could not treat the contested interest as an admitted amount and insist on its deposit as a precondition for considering the settlement application. The Tribunal erred in affirming that approach.

Conclusion: The insistence on deposit of the disputed interest amount was unjustified and amounted to a jurisdictional error. The orders of the designated authority and the Tribunal were set aside, and the settlement application was directed to be considered without requiring further deposit.

---