Court orders refund of surplus amount, lifts property attachment emphasizing valid assessment orders.

The court allowed the writ petitions, directing the refund of the surplus amount to the petitioner and lifting the property attachment. The judgment emphasized the importance of valid assessment orders for enforcing revenue demands and upheld the petitioner's compliance with the Settlement Act's remittance requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of applications for settlement of arrears under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2019.
2. Determination of demands raised under orders of assessment for the periods 1994-95 and 1995-96.
3. Question of whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'dealer' under the Settlement Act.
4. Compliance with the requirement of remitting 90% of the arrears along with the application.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Settlement Applications
The petitioner, a sole proprietary business, purchased a property at an auction conducted by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. The petitioner sought to register the sale deed but faced denial due to an encumbrance by the Commercial Taxes Department. Following advice, the petitioner applied for settlement of arrears under the Settlement Act for various tax periods. Despite remitting Rs. 27 lakhs, the applications were rejected on grounds of not meeting the 'dealer' requirement and failing to remit 90% of the settlement amount upfront.

Issue 2: Determination of Demands
The court highlighted the necessity of valid assessment orders for raising demands under revenue statutes. It was established that valid assessment orders were only available for the periods 1994-95 and 1995-96, with no orders for other years. Consequently, the court found that demands for these two years amounted to Rs. 11,85,987/- and Rs. 1,18,292/- respectively. This led to a detailed examination of the petitioner's compliance with the settlement amount requirement.

Issue 3: Qualification as a 'Dealer'
The court clarified that the petitioner need not qualify as a 'dealer' under the Settlement Act since the settlement was sought on behalf of the original assessee to release the property from the Department's encumbrance. This aspect was deemed irrelevant to the case under consideration.

Issue 4: Compliance with Remittance Requirement
The court referred to specific provisions of the Settlement Act, emphasizing the need to remit 90% of the arrears along with the application. The designated authority had correctly calculated the demand under Section 7(b) of the Act, totaling Rs. 13,04,279/-. As the petitioner had remitted Rs. 27,46,034/-, well exceeding the demand, the court ordered the excess amount to be refunded within six weeks, lifting the property attachment promptly.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petitions, directing the refund of the surplus amount to the petitioner and lifting the property attachment. The judgment underscored the importance of valid assessment orders for enforcing revenue demands and upheld the petitioner's compliance with the Settlement Act's remittance requirements.

---