1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD).No.655 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Tvl.Pandian Industries, rep. by the legal heir Thiru.R.Senthil Kumar, S/o.Late K.Ramasamy, 1/49, Madurai Road, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner (C.T.), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Reserve Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceeding of the first respondent in his SDS.No.8/2008 dated 12.11.2010 received by the petitioner on 04.12.2010 and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to pass fresh orders allowing the petitioner to pay the settlement arrears of Rs.30,640/- for the assessment year 1989-90 to the second respondent. For petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl. Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner challenges the order dated 12.11.2010 whereby and whereunder an intimation was given to them that their application to avail the benefits of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement & Arrears) Act was rejected on account of the non- compliance of the condition. 2.The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the second respondent. They have made an application for settlement under the “Samathan Scheme”. The scheme provides for payment of 90% of the tax amount as a condition precedent for considering the request for settlement. The petitioner appears to have paid only lesser amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and there was a shortage of Rs.30,640/-. This made the first respondent to reject the application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 3.The first respondent has filed a counter wherein it was clearly indicated that the petitioner has not complied with Section 6 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement & Arrears) Act, 2008 so as to enable them to get the benefits of the scheme 2008. 4.The petitioner has no case that they have satisfied the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement & Arrears) Act, 2008. Section 6(3) of the Act provides that the applicant has to pay 90% of the amount due and if the difference of short payment is within 10% of the total amount payable, the difference can be paid on notifying the same by the designated authority. In so far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has paid only 63% of the arrears and there was a balance of 37%. Therefore, the first respondent was fully justified in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under “Samathan Scheme”. The first respondent has also intimated the petitioner that it is open to him to apply under the scheme 2010 valid upto 31.12.2010. 5.The “Samathan Scheme” was introduced for the purpose of giving one time settlement. To avail the settlement, the parties should adhere to the terms and conditions. In case the petitioner has paid the entire amount as per Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement & Arrears) Act, 2008, their application would have been considered by the respondents. It was only on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the required amount, the application was rejected. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the writ petition. 6.In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Joint Commissioner (C.T.), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Reserve Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, Sr.No.5324 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 5432 gcg ssk/01.03.2011 /5c -2p/- W.P.(MD).No.655 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/