2020 (4) TMI 3 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds decision rejecting Assessee's tax settlement application. Payment before applying renders ineligibility.

M/s. Greenland Exports Private Ltd., Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT III), The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai., The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Chennai

M/s. Greenland Exports Private Ltd., Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT III), The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate ... Issues:1. Interpretation of eligibility criteria under the Samadhan Scheme for settlement of tax arrears.2. Disqualification of Assessee for availing benefits under the Scheme due to payment of entire tax before application.3. Justification of the Deputy Commissioner's decision to reject the Assessee's application.4. Validity of the Deputy Commissioner's order and dismissal of the Writ Petitions.Interpretation of Eligibility Criteria under the Samadhan Scheme:The Assessee filed Writ Petitions challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order under the Samadhan Scheme. The Scheme required the existence of arrears of tax, penalty, or interest with a pending dispute. The Deputy Commissioner held that since the Assessee had paid the tax before applying under the Scheme, they were not entitled to its benefits. The Deputy Commissioner referred to Section 4(1) of the Act, stating that an applicant may apply for settlement of arrears in dispute. As the Assessee had already paid the dues, the application was deemed not entertainable under the Scheme.Disqualification of Assessee for Availing Scheme Benefits:The Assessee contended that paying the entire arrears should not disqualify them from applying under the Samadhan Scheme. They argued that the only criteria for application was the pendency of an appeal or revision before a specific date. However, the Deputy Commissioner found the application not entertainable as the Assessee had cleared the dues before the specified date, rendering them ineligible for the Scheme's benefits.Justification of Deputy Commissioner's Decision:Despite the absence of representation from the Assessee, the Court considered the arguments of the Revenue's counsel. The Court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was error-free. Since the tax had been paid in full, the Assessee could not benefit from the Scheme's tax liability reduction. The Court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's rejection of the applications, finding them without merit and subsequently dismissed the Writ Petitions.Validity of Deputy Commissioner's Order and Dismissal of Writ Petitions:In the absence of any errors in the Deputy Commissioner's decision, the Court found the Assessee's Writ Petitions lacked merit and were liable for dismissal. The Court affirmed the rejection of the applications by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions without costs.