Settlement of Dispute Must Be Entire: Court Rejects Partial Resolution Request

The court held that under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999, the entirety of a dispute in an appeal or revision must be settled, and partial settlement is not permissible. The petitioner's request to settle only one aspect of the dispute was denied, emphasizing that the Act aims to conclude pending proceedings entirely. The petitioner was given the opportunity to modify the application to include the settlement of the entire dispute within a specified timeframe, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Whether it is possible to settle a part of a pending dispute under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 without settling the entire appeal or revision.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to settle only one aspect of a dispute under the Act of 1999, raising the question of whether partial settlement is permissible. The petitioner argued that nothing in the Act prohibits settling a part of the dispute without compromising the entirety of the matter. Reference was made to various sections of the Act to support the petitioner's eligibility for settlement and the application process. The petitioner emphasized Section 7 as crucial for providing benefits to the assessee under the settlement scheme.

The State contended that settlement provisions aim to conclude pending proceedings entirely. Section 10 of the Act was highlighted, stating that an appeal or revision must be withdrawn upon settlement, indicating that the dispute must be fully resolved under the settlement provision. The department argued that the purpose of settlement schemes is to clear pending cases and unlock revenue, emphasizing that the Act does not allow for partial resolution of disputes pending adjudication.

The court analyzed the wording of Section 10 and concluded that the provision does not support the petitioner's interpretation. It was emphasized that the Act's overarching goal is to dispose of pending cases before adjudicating authorities. While acknowledging that resolving some areas of disagreement may expedite the process, the court held that under the Act, the entirety of the dispute in an appeal or revision must be settled, or none at all.

The judgment declined to interfere with the show-cause notice issued by the department regarding the petitioner's partial settlement application. However, the petitioner was given the opportunity to modify the application to include the settlement of the entire dispute pending before the Board within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded, and urgent certified copies of the order were made available to the parties upon request.

---