This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to confer on the petitioner the benefit of one time settlement, announced in the year, 2008, for the settlement of the sales tax dues for the year, 2000-2001.
2. The petitioner has stated that she has been carrying on her business dealing in lime and Charcoal, in the name and style of `Ponlakshimi Lime Industries' at Vilathikulam village, Thoothukudi District, under TNGST No.5881153. While so, there was a setback in the business carried on by the petitioner's husband during the year, 2001, and therefore, he was declared as an insolvent. Thereafter, the petitioner had shifted her family to the State of Karnataka. Later, when she had returned to her native village, in the month of August, 2008, she has come to know that the Sales Tax Department of Ettayapuram Taluk was taking steps to bring the petitioner's factory and land at Karisalkulam, in Thoothukudi District, for sale, by way of a public auction, for recovery of the sales tax dues from the petitioner. When the petitioner had approached the office of the respondent, she had been informed that an amount of Rs.66,842/- was due from the petitioner, as the sales tax, for the year 2000- 2001. Accordingly, the total amount liable to be paid by the petitioner was nearly Rs.1,00,000/-, along with the accrued interest.
3. The petitioner has further stated that in order to save her property, which is being brought for sale, by way of a public auction, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.7,000/-, in the month of October, 2008. However, the respondent had not granted the benefit of interest waiver by way of `one time settlement' announced in the year, 2008. The petitioner had requested for permission to pay the entire amount of Rs.60,000/- due from her, as sales tax, by way of an `one time settlement'. However, the first respondent, by an intimation, in Na.Ka.No.694/2001/A3, dated 13.4.2009, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,515/- towards the sales tax due, with interest, for the year 2000-2001, as it has been finalised, under `best of judgment', dated 30.6.2004. She had also been intimated that her property would be brought for sale, by way of a public auction, if she defaults in payment of the said amount.
4. The petitioner had also stated that she was not served with the notice before the respondent had finalised the sales tax amount, said to be due from the petitioner. Therefore, the decision of the respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amount of Rs.49,077/- due from her, as sales tax. Since she had already paid Rs.7,000/- during the month of October, 2008, the said amount may be deducted from the total amount due from the petitioner.
5. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that `one time settlement scheme', for the payment of sales tax dues, had expired, on 2.11.2009. Further, the petitioner is not entitled to any reduction or waiver in the payment of interest, in respect of the sales tax due from her. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
6. In view of the averments made by the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by her in the present writ petition. No irregularity or illegality has been shown to have been committed by the respondent in arriving at the amount due from the petitioner, as arrears of sales tax, along with the interest thereon. The petitioner should have approached the respondent before the `one time settlement scheme' had expired, on 2.11.2009.
7. Once the said scheme had come to end, it would not be appropriate for this Court to extend the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had claimed that she had not been issued with a notice before the best judgment decision had been taken during the year, 2004, she has not been in a position to substantiate her claim, with sufficient evidence. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No costs. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, including the respondent, for making an offer to settle the amount due from her. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 is closed.` lan To:
The Commercial Tax Officer Ettaiyapuram, Thoothukudi District