12/29, 21:02] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1608485991760953344?t=Vs8RhOa_4zh6cBk5Ib5Q6A&s=08 [12/29, 21:02] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *The Joint Commissioner (ST)(North) & Anr. Vs. C. Vijayakumar* W.A. No. 2369 to 2375 of 2022 Dated: 02.12.2022

[12/29, 21:02] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1608485991760953344?t=Vs8RhOa_4zh6cBk5Ib5Q6A&s=08
[12/29, 21:02] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*The Joint Commissioner (ST)(North) & Anr. Vs. C. Vijayakumar*
W.A. No. 2369 to 2375 of 2022
Dated: 02.12.2022

*HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN* allowed the Writ Appeals in the matter relating to *“Sales Tax Arrears – Settlement/Refund”,* and further observed and held as follows:

1) Application for Settlement of Tax arrears was rejected on the grounds that:
(a) the defaulter had availed the benefit of IFST (Interest Free Service Tax) and hence, ineligible for settlement of arrears under Settlement Act, 2010,
(b) applicant was not a ‘dealer’ u/S. 2(1) of the Settlement Act, 2010, and
(c) the applicant had not paid 90% of the amount payable under the Settlement Act, 2010.

2) Held that, prior to Settlement Act, 2010, a Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006 was in force, wherein there was a specific bar for filing application for settling the dues on a person who had availed deferral and had defaulted. However, under the Settlement Act, 2010, such a restriction is not present.

3) Though the Respondent is not a dealer as under the Act, considering that concession was given by entertaining the application and since the order of the Designated Authority was not challenged by the Commercial Tax Department in the manner known to Law, the Court did not wish to deny the above partial benefit.

4) When the defaulter himself agreed to pay an amount that is over and above what had already been paid and had prayed for the Department to accept that sum, the impugned order to direct the Department to refund the amount paid, to the defaulter deserved to be interfered and is therefore set aside, and consequently a direction was issued to the defaulter to pay the defaulting amount to the Department.

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*The Joint Commissioner (ST)(North) & Anr. Vs. C. Vijayakumar*
W.A. No. 2369 to 2375 of 2022
Dated: 02.12.2022

*HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN* allowed the Writ Appeals in the matter relating to *“Sales Tax Arrears – Settlement/Refund”,* and further observed and held as follows:

1) Application for Settlement of Tax arrears was rejected on the grounds that:
(a) the defaulter had availed the benefit of IFST (Interest Free Service Tax) and hence, ineligible for settlement of arrears under Settlement Act, 2010,
(b) applicant was not a ‘dealer’ u/S. 2(1) of the Settlement Act, 2010, and
(c) the applicant had not paid 90% of the amount payable under the Settlement Act, 2010.

2) Held that, prior to Settlement Act, 2010, a Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006 was in force, wherein there was a specific bar for filing application for settling the dues on a person who had availed deferral and had defaulted. However, under the Settlement Act, 2010, such a restriction is not present.

3) Though the Respondent is not a dealer as under the Act, considering that concession was given by entertaining the application and since the order of the Designated Authority was not challenged by the Commercial Tax Department in the manner known to Law, the Court did not wish to deny the above partial benefit.

4) When the defaulter himself agreed to pay an amount that is over and above what had already been paid and had prayed for the Department to accept that sum, the impugned order to direct the Department to refund the amount paid, to the defaulter deserved to be interfered and is therefore set aside, and consequently a direction was issued to the defaulter to pay the defaulting amount to the Department.