TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to call for the records of first respondent dated 07.07.2014 for the various assessment years and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the application made by the petitioner firm in Form I dated 30.04.2012. 3. Since the facts pleaded in all the Writ Petitions are similar in nature, for the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.12837 of 2015, is taken into consideration:- 3.1. It is averred in the affidavit that the petitioner firm had entered into an agreement with the General Manager, District Industries Center, Trichy for IFST Deferral Scheme and the Eligibility Certificate was issued on 09.10.1995. It is submitted that the petitioner firm entered into an agreement with the Assistan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had to be calculated from the date of filing the monthly returns. The first respondent stated that the petitioner had wrongly calculated the penal interest by treating 16.12.2003 as the base and not from the date of filing the monthly return for the year 1995-1996. Further, the first respondent has stated that as per Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Settlement of Arrears Act 29/2011, the applicant should have paid 90% of the arrears of tax and if not, the application could not be accepted. 3.3. As the petitioner's alleges that the arrears of interest was more than 10%, the first respondent proposed to reject the petitioner's application under Samadhan Scheme. While so, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 dated 06.12.2006 and in Sree Kalpatharu Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore made in W.P.(MD).No.19060 of 2009, dated 01.12.2010. Eventually, the first respondent stated that the petitioner's agreement was not cancelled during the repayment of tax and the same was cancelled before that period and therefore, interest has to be paid from the date of filing the monthly returns. Accordingly, the petitioner's Samadhan application was rejected by the second respondent vide the impugned notices referred to above. Challenging the same, the petitioner firm is before this Court for the relief stated supra. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of returns only and not from the date of cancellation and prayed for the dismissal of these Writ Petitions. 6. In order to give quietus to this matter, it is more relevant to extract the order of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1482 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006. "....2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that as per the terms of the deferral agreement, in the event of default in the repayment of the IFST deferral loan, the loan can be recoverable along with the interest at 24% per annum calculated from the due date for repayment of loan. Therefore, the penal interest, if any, should be calculated only from the due date for repayment of the loan and not from the date on which t....