ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner prays for writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 8.5.2001, to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to issue to the petitioner, Certificate of Settlement under the Samadhan scheme under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax, Entertainment Tax and Luxury Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 12/1999)
2. The following facts are sufficient to dispose of this petition. The petitioner was held liable for payment of Tamil Nadu sales tax and he opted for the Samadhan scheme under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax, Entertainment Tax and Luxury Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 12/1999) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). A certificate under Form 2 was issued directing the petitioner to make a payment computed in terms of the scheme in one lumpsom within 30 days of the receipt of certificate with 0.5% interest per month from the date of accrual to the date of payment of the amount payable under the Act.
3. Admittedly, there was delay in the payment of the amount due under the scheme and the petitioner had sought for condonation of delay in the payment of the amount. However, by virtue of the impugned order dated 8.5.2001, the Principal Commissioner had rejected the request by stating that there was no provision to condone the delay in payment of tax settled in Form 2 and that the request of the petitioner was not capable of compliance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when once the provisional certificate is issued under Form 2, the scheme is finalised and for any delayed payment, the respondent can charge only interest. There is no statutory limitation for the payment of the amount and that is the reason why interest at the rate of 0.5% per month is specified in the order issued under Form 2 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of S. JAGADEESAN, J in PRAHALATHA BABU -vs- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (241 ITR 457). In that judgment, the learned Judge has dealt with the analogous provision under the Income Tax Act namely under Voluntary disclosure of income scheme. Learned Judge, after discussing the provisions held that the provision regarding limitation for payment should not be construed strictly and that tax paid under the scheme was not refundable and the declarant also exposes himself to other proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue contends that there is no provision in the Act to condone the delay and hence there was no justification for the petitioner’s request to entertain the claim for belated payment of the amount due under the scheme.
6. I have considered the submissions of both sides. Apart from the judgment relied on by the learned counsel as aforesaid which emphasises that the period of limitation should not be construed strictly, a perusal of Form 2 itself discloses that no strict time limit is prescribed for payment of the amount due under the scheme. In fact, interest is chargeable at the rate of 0.5% per month from the date of accrual to the date of payment on the amount payable under the scheme. It is true that the said provision cannot be read in a way to endlessly postpone such payment. As long as the delay is properly explained, the authority is expected to exercise its mind in an objective manner. In the petition filed before the Principal Commissioner, the petitioner has stated that immediately after the receipt of the directions to pay the amount in one lumpsum within 30 days, the said order was served on the petitioner on 22.7.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner had given nine cheques for the entire amount. However, a sum of Rs. 1, 33, 000 alone was realised by the department and that the said cheques were issued on the belief that he would get the monies due from his client namely Kamatchi Textiles but to the petitioner’s dismay, the proprietor of Kamatchi Textiles met with an accident and expired on the spot on 11.8.1999 and hence the cheques were not honoured. The petitioner has further stated that he had paid the entire amount under the Samadhan scheme namely Rs. 3, 05, 298/- and the same was accepted by the Department without any protest. He has also given reasons for the delay for the subsequent period and that he had approached the designated authority on 21.1.2000 informing him that he had paid the entire amount under the Samadhan scheme and requested him to issue certificate to that effect.
7. None of these reasons stated by the petitioner have been discussed by the Principal Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner had chosen to reject the request only on the ground that there was no provision to compound the delay. For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to sustain the impugned order and having accepted the full amount without any protest and also considering that no time limit is specified under Form 2 as mentioned above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The respondents are directed to appropriate the amount paid by the petitioner towards the Samadhan scheme and the petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the scheme. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.