TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panaji by a notice dated 15.02.2011, the petitioner was intimated about assessment of tax, under the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 (Act of 2000, for short) of Rs.39,41,508/- for the year ending 31.03.2005. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 28 of the Act of 2000 which came to be dismissed on 13.02.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29(1) of the Act of 2000 before the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji, being Appeal No.1/2012. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant submitted an application in prescribed Form-I as per the provisions of the Goa (Recovery of Arrears of Tax through Settlement) Act 2009, as amended Goa (Recovery of Arrears of Tax through Settlement)(Amendment) Act, 2016 on 01.03.2017. It appears that the designated authority issued an intimation to the petitioner in Form-II in terms of Section 6(2) of the Act of 2009 as amended requiring the petitioner to pay the amount by generating an e-challan within 20 days from the receipt of the letter and to furnish a self attested photo copy of the receipt in the office of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 04.08.2017. It is submitted that the rejection of the application for settlement being under Section 8(2) of the Act, the proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2009 as amended would apply and the appeal will have to be heard on merits. It is submitted that the Administrative Tribunal was in error in importing a concept of wilful default, which is not applicable in the context of the provisions of the Act of 2009 as amended. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocates on behalf of the respondents have contended that the application for settlement filed by the petitioner was indeed entertained and the petitioner was required to pay the amount of arrears, within the specified time, as per the intimation issued in Form- II. It is submitted that the petitioner having failed to pay the amount, cannot now seek restoration of the appeals. It is submitted that the rejection of the application for settlement in the present case is not referable to Section 8(2) of the Act of 2009 as amended and, therefore, the proviso to Section 11 of the said Act will not apply. 11. I have carefully considered the circumstances and the substances made. The material facts, apart from being undispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Settlement of arrears and issue of certificate of settlement- (1) The designated authority, on being satisfied that the applicant has paid the amount determined under section 6, shall issue a certificate of settlement in form as specified in Part C of the Schedule hereto, to the applicant and thereupon, such applicant shall be discharged from his liability to make payment of the balance amount of arrears of tax, interest and penalty to which he was liable before settlement. (2) The designated authority may, by an Order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the application of the applicant on the ground that no question of settlement arises or rectify or amend the certificate of settlement issued under sub-section (1): Provided that no order adversely affecting the applicant shall be passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further than an appeal against the order of the designated authority shall lie to the Commissioner and such appeal shall be made within a period of sixty days from the date of such order. Section 11 - Reviewing, appellate and revisional authority not to proceed in certain cases.- No assessing authority, reviewing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of the Act, which the concerned assessee fails to comply by deposit of the amount of the dues, as in the present case. Both these rejections are nevertheless rejections under Section 8(2) of the Act, as 'no question of settlement' would arise in such a case. There is nothing in sub-section (2) of Section 8 to exclude the rejection in the later case as above. The learned Administrative Tribunal has found that the petitioner having wilfully failed to deposit the dues in compliance with the intimation in Form-II, is not now entitled to the restoration of the appeal which, in my considered view, cannot be accepted. If the reasoning articulated by the learned Administrative Tribunal is accepted, it will create two categories of rejections which are not contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. Under the said Section, a rejection is a rejection, which may be on account of the non-eligibility of the assessee or even failure of the assessee to comply with the intimation under Section 6(2) of the Act. Thus, in my considered view, the rejection in the present case is referable to sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the Act and if that be so, the proviso to Section 11 of....