1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD).Nos.14223 to 14226 of 2011 and MP.(MD).Nos.1,1,1 and 1 OF 2011 M/s.Siva Cardamom Agency, rep. by its Proprietor R.Maheswaran Devankar Street, Kombai, Theni ... Petitioner in all the WPs Vs 1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), formerly known as Deputy Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division, Madurai. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, formerly known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Uthamapalayam Assessment Circle Uthamapalayam, Theni District. ...Respondents in all the WPs PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Roc.Nos.15622/2006/ A7,15620/2006/A7, 15623/2006/A7 and 15621/2006/A7 dated 25.7.2011 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Spl.Govt.Pleader COMMON ORDER All these writ petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiver of penalty and interest under the Tamilnadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006. 2. Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M. Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was a dealer in spices such as cardamom. He claimed to have closed down his business in the year 1984, before joining Government service. 4. The assessment for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 was completed on best of judgment basis on various dates, but the petitioner failed to pay the tax amounts, on due dates. The issue got prolonged for more than twenty years and ultimately, the Government introduced a one time settlement scheme under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Tamilnadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2006. Claiming benefits of the said scheme, the petitioner made separate applications in respect of each of those four assessment years, namely 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 on a single day, namely 18.12.2006. After examining the request, notices were ordered by the first respondent and the petitioner gave his reply on 19.10.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned orders dated 25.7.2011 rejecting the request made under the samadhan scheme, in respect of each of those assessment years, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petitions. 5. Admittedly, the arrears accrued either from the year 1985 or from the year 1989, in respect of each of those assessment years. For the assessment year 1979-80, the arrears accrued on 14.3.1985, for the assessment year 1980-81, the arrears accrued on 16.10.1989, for the assessment year 1981-82, the arrears accrued on 16.10.1989 and for the assessment year 1982-83, the arrears accrued on 26.8.1985. 6. Keeping the above dates in mind, if we look at the dates on which the petitioner made payment of the amounts accrued, it would be shocking. The petitioner actually made payment of the tax amounts only on 29.12.2006, 13.12.2006, 18.12.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. In other words, the period during which the petitioner had retained even the tax amounts lawfully payable by him to the Government, ranges from 17 to 21 years. Therefore, the impugned orders rejecting his request for waiver of penalty and interest have to be viewed in the context of the theory of unjust enrichment and unlawful retention of public money by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of the Tamilnadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act 2006. Under the said Act, the assessee was entitled to make an application for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest. The application was to be presented to the Designated Authority within three months from the date of commencement of the Act, under Section 5(1). Section 6 prescribes the procedure for determination of the amount payable. Section 7 speaks about the rate applicable in determining the amount payable. Section 8 empowers the Designated Authority to issue a certificate of settlement. 8. The thrust of Section 8(1) of the Act is that the Designated Authority shall "on being satisfied", issue a certificate. Under Sub.Section (2) of Section 8, the Designated Authority has the power to refuse the request for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest. But, the only condition is that a reasonable opportunity of showing cause should have been given. 9. In all these cases, notices were issued on 7.11.2008. The petitioner gave his reply and the reply was considered by the respondents. Therefore, the procedure has been followed by the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. After following the prescribed procedure, the first respondent has clearly pointed out that the petitioner does not deserve any waiver in view of the long passage of time spreading from 17 to 21 years. 11. It must be borne in mind that the value of money today is far below the value of money in 1985 or 1989. When the tax component itself was paid only in 2006, after it accrued in 1985 and 1989, there is no case for waiver. The respondents are justified in rejecting the request. 12. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), formerly known as Deputy Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division, Madurai. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, formerly known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Uthamapalayam Assessment Circle, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.43859 WP(MD).Nos.14223 to 14226/2011 and MP.(MD)Nos.1,1,1 and 1/2011 14.12.2011 RR/RS RJ/10.1.12 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/