Settlement scheme applies only to bona fide disputes; admitted dues and automatic interest may be verified before rejection.

The settlement scheme was confined to real, bona fide disputes and could be rejected where the amounts shown as admitted were not in fact admitted or payable. Under the West Bengal sales tax provisions, delayed-payment interest was treated as automatic and not dependent on a prior assessment determination, and the designated authority could verify whether tax, interest and penalty claimed as admitted were truly payable to prevent abuse of the settlement process. The challenge based on absence of hearing also failed because sufficient opportunity had already been afforded and remand would serve no useful purpose. The rejection of the settlement application for non-payment of admitted dues was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the designated authority could examine whether the tax, interest and penalty shown in the settlement application were truly admitted or disputed and reject the application for non-payment of admitted dues, and whether the impugned order was invalid for want of hearing or for breach of the statutory bar on proceeding with the appeal.

Analysis: The settlement scheme was held to be intended for real, bona fide disputes and not for sham or non-existent disputes. On the scheme of section 31(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 167 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, liability to pay interest for delayed payment was treated as automatic and not dependent upon a prior determination by the assessing authority. Reading section 5, section 7, section 8(2) and section 11 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 with rule 2(a) of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Rules, 1999, the designated authority was held to be competent to verify whether the amount claimed as admitted was in fact admitted and payable under the statute, so as to prevent abuse of the settlement process. The plea of violation of the hearing requirement was also rejected, as the petitioners were found to have had sufficient opportunity before the Tribunal and no useful purpose would be served by remand.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the settlement application for non-payment of admitted dues was valid, and the challenge to it failed.

---