Court overturns rejection of settlement applications under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, citing procedural errors and statutory duty concerns.

The court addressed the rejection of the petitioner's settlement applications under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act. It found the rejection unjust as the petitioner followed the prescribed process, remitted tax, and should have been given an opportunity to present defenses. Disqualification based on dismissed appeals was deemed incorrect, and concerns were raised about the Assessing Officer's potential statutory duty violation. Inconsistencies in reasons for rejection were noted, leading the court to quash the orders, remand for reconsideration, and direct a review on merit with a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of applications for settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010.
2. Lack of opportunity provided to the petitioner to submit defenses before rejection.
3. Disqualification based on dismissed appeals before Appellate Authority and Tribunal.
4. Concerns regarding abdication of statutory duties by the Assessing Officer.
5. Disqualification for not being a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
6. Inconsistency in reasons provided for rejection.
7. Late assertion of inability to entertain applications after processing and remittance of tax.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the rejection of the petitioner's applications for settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010. The second respondent rejected the applications citing various reasons, including the petitioner not being a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. However, the court noted that the petitioner was led to believe their applications were being processed after submitting them and remitting tax. The court found the rejection based on this ground untenable as the petitioner had followed the process as directed by the Department.

Another issue raised was the lack of opportunity provided to the petitioner to submit defenses before the rejection of their applications. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to present their case, especially considering the seriousness of the matter involving settlement of arrears under the Act.

Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the disqualification of the petitioner based on dismissed appeals before the Appellate Authority and Tribunal. The court clarified that the pendency of appeals does not disqualify a dealer from approaching the Joint Commissioner under the Settlement Act. Therefore, this reason for rejection was deemed incorrect.

The judgment also highlighted the issue of possible abdication of statutory duties by the Assessing Officer if they merely followed the calculations made by Enforcement Wing officials. The court expressed that such actions would be a violation of the officer's responsibilities and duties under the law.

Moreover, the court noted inconsistencies in the reasons provided for rejection, including a late assertion that the petitioner was not entitled to make payment by cheque. The court found it unreasonable for the second respondent to now claim that the applications could not have been entertained after the petitioner had already followed the prescribed procedures and remitted the tax.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the matters to the second respondent for a fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to review the petitioner's applications on merit, provide a personal hearing, and ensure compliance with the Settlement Act provisions.

---