1. In this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 the petitioner, M/s. Park Hotel Pvt. Ltd., prays for an order of setting aside the order dated September 4, 2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, and designated authority under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 refusing to entertain petitioner's application for settlement of dispute of taxes, interests in respect of its hotel business relating to the period four quarters ending June 30, 1984.
The case of the applicant is that the assessment for the petitioner's hotel business for the four quarters ending June 30, 1984 was completed on October 16, 1992 under Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Against that assessment order, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No. 5, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, who disposed of the same by two orders both dated December 24, 1993--by one order made some modification and by the other order regarding interest remanded the case back to the assessment officer for re-determination of interest as per law and as per direction given therein. Against that order dated December 24, 1993 revision under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was filed before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal on April 4, 1994 and the said Tribunal which was designated at that time as Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board--by order dated March 4, 1999 dismissed the revision. Against that order dated March 4, 1999 petitioner filed application registered as RN-236 of 1999 before this Tribunal on July 16, 1999. In the mean time West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (henceforth referred as "Settlement Act") came into force with effect from July 1, 1999 under notification dated June 16, 1999--to provide speedy enforcement of payments of arrear tax, penalty or interest in dispute, etc., under the sales tax laws in West Bengal by way of settlement of such disputes. On July 22, 1999 application under Section 5 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Settlement Act of 1999 was filed by the petitioner before the Designated Authority under that Act fulfilling the eligibility criteria as mentioned in that Act. It may be mentioned that in the said application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 filed on July 16, 1999 a miscellaneous petition was filed on July 29, 1999 before the main application was heard in the matter of its admission. That miscellaneous application was filed with a prayer for withdrawal of the main application to enable the petitioner to file application before the Designated Authority under the Settlement Act of 1999. By order dated September 10, 1999 this Tribunal allowed withdrawal giving liberty to file fresh application before the Tribunal subject to the law of limitation. On November 20, 2000 the petitioner received memo dated November 13, 2000 of respondent No. 2 wherefrom the petitioner came to know of the impugned order dated September 4, 2000 rejecting the application for settlement filed by the petitioner on the ground of its being not maintainable. It is against the said order the petitioner has come up here praying for quashing the same as the said order is illegal.
2. The respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition supports the order and contends that the order is in conformity with Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1999 which requires that at the time of making the application, the appeal or revision must not be finally disposed of. In this case the revision preferred before the Board was already dismissed by order dated March 4, 1999 and this application for settlement was filed on July 22, 1999. Moreover, amendment to the Act of 1999 by inserting Section 4A and inserting Clause (b) of Section 5 for the purpose of extending benefit in respect of pending dispute regarding arrear tax, penalty, etc., before this Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court having come into force with effect from July 12, 2000 and the same having not been given retrospective effect, the petitioner is not entitled to avail of the amended provisions. Even under the amended provision the petitioner cannot be held to be an eligible person for getting the benefit of the Settlement Act.
3. The petitioner in this case also used affidavit-in-reply. It is the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of the Settlement Act demands that the appeal or revision must be pending before the appellate or revisional authority on December 31, 1998. Pendency on the date of filing the settlement petition is not what is required. Such order rejecting the settlement petition is without authority of law and is liable to be quashed.
4. In the backdrop of these facts, the main question which craves for an answer is as to whether the petitioner is eligible for filing application for settlement within the meaning of Section 4 of the Settlement Act when its application before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board was filed on April 4, 1994 and was disposed of on March 4, 1999 which date is anterior to the date of application (which is July 22, 1999) before the settlement forum or if the petitioner can be said to fulfil the eligibility criteria when its application in second revision was filed before this Tribunal on July 16, 1999 which was ultimately disposed of by an order dated September 10, 1999 permitting withdrawal of the application giving liberty to file a fresh application on the same cause of action subject to the law of limitation.
5. Sri A.K. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, submits that the impugned order dated September 4, 2000 of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the settlement application on the grounds mentioned in the order is not sustainable in law in view of the language in Section 2 of the Settlement Act defining "arrear tax, penalty or interest in dispute", in view of the language describing eligibility criteria for settlement and also in view of Section 5 giving the date of filing of the application and also in view of Rule 2 defining "appeal or revision pending" in Settlement of Dispute Rules, 1999. At this moment, we must look to the order impugned. As we peruse the order dated September 4, 2000 of the designated authority, it is clear that hearing was given duly to the petitioner before passing the order. So the allegation that natural justice was violated does not appear to be true. The order thereafter is as follows : It appears that the Appellate and Revisional Board has disposed the petitioner's revisional application on March 4, 1999 and thereafter the petitioner filed second revision before the honourable West Bengal Taxation Tribunal on/about July 16, 1999 and at the same time prayed for settlement before me on/about July 22, 1999. Since the petitioner's original revision petition which was pending before the Appellate and Revisional Board was disposed of on/about March 4, 1999 the settlement application filed before me on July 22, 1999 is not maintainable and hence rejected.
6. Sri A.K. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the application for making use of the provisions of Settlement Act was filed by the petitioner within 30th day of September, 1999 which is the ultimate date within which as per Section 5 of the Settlement Act such application is required to be filed. Admittedly the application before the designated authority in this case was filed on July 22, 1999. He next submits that the eligibility criteria as given in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 have been fulfilled by the petitioner since revision admittedly before the Board was pending on the 31st day of December, 1998--the date mentioned in Sub-section (1) and the same has not been finally heard by the said date as per Sub-section (2). In support of his such submission he draws on the definition of "appeal or revision pending" as given in Rule 2 of the Settlement Rules, 1999. It has been mentioned therein "appeal or revision pending" relates to its pendency on the 31st day of December, 1998 before the appellate or revision authority and that as such Sub-section (2) of Section 4 refers "finally heard" not to the date of the application but to the date 31st day of December, 1998. His argument is that the Act has been enacted for expeditious enforcement of payment of arrears tax, penalty, etc., in dispute under the sales tax laws in West Bengal by way of settlement of such dispute. The Legislature thus encourages settlement of disputes over arrear tax, interest, etc., expeditiously through this forum. For that the language of the provisions of the Act as stated should be construed liberally to enable settlement of such disputes through this forum. The plain and unambiguous expressions as found in Sections 4, 5 and 4A of the Act of 1999 read with Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 1999 makes it clear and explicit the legislative intent that to acquire eligibility for settlement under this Act, the dispute in the appellate or revisional forum concerning arrear tax, interest, etc., must be pending on the 31st day of December, 1998 and must not have been finally heard by that date. It may be mentioned that learned advocate for the petitioner referred to some decisions like Commissioner of Income-tax v.Income-tax, West Bengal v. Vegetable Products Ltd. to emphasise as to how provision of statute particularly taxing statute is to be interpreted.
7. The principle enunciated in the rulings cited is to the effect that one has to, in a taxing Act, look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. The meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expressions used therein. To arrive at the real meaning, it is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act. These are widely accepted principle of interpretation and those require to be kept in mind while interpreting the language in dispute on perusal of the provisions of the Act as a whole. Learned advocate for the petitioner next contends that the revisional application challenging the order of dismissal by the Board was filed within time before this Tribunal and the same had been pending on the date this application before the settlement forum was filed on July 22, 1999. So even if the word "finally heard" appearing in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 is illogically stressed to refer to them of the application, the application before the forum cannot be held to be not maintainable.
8. At this stage we think that we should note what is prescribed in Section 4 which runs thus : Eligibility for settlement.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, an applicant shall be eligible to make an application for settlement of arrear tax, penalty or interest in dispute in respect of any period for which an assessment has been made under the relevant Act and an appeal or revision relating thereto is pending on the 31st day of December, 1998, before any appellate authority or revisional authority, as the case may be.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), an applicant shall not be eligible to make an application for settlement of arrear tax, penalty or interest in respect of any period under the relevant Act for which the appeal or revision has been finally heard by the appellate authority or the revisional authority, as the case may be.
9. As we analyse, we are in agreement with the learned advocate for the petitioner that Sub-section (1) prescribes that to be eligible, dispute regarding assessment of arrear tax, etc., must be pending in appeal or revision on the 31st day of December, 1998 before the appellate or revisional authority. But Sub-section (2) of Section 4 makes an exception to the general qualification laid down in Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) prescribes a further condition that the appeal or revision if finally heard the applicant shall not be eligible to make the application. The Sub-section does not explicitly specify whether final hearing refers to date of hearing of the application for settlement or the date of application before the forum or if it refers to a date on or before December 31, 1998. It has been decided by three-Member Bench of this Tribunal reported in (2000) 35 STA 142 in a case between Progressive Machinery Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal that the date of application is the crucial date with reference to which the eligibility of the applicant should be decided. It has been held that overriding effect has been given by the non obstante clause in Sub-section (2) of Section 4.
Therefore, in view of Section 4(2), the eligibility does not depend only on an appeal or revision remaining pending on December 31, 1998 but also on another condition, namely, that the appeal or revision should not have been finally heard by the concerned authority. The word--"finally heard" means finally heard on the date of application which is the only significant date for consideration of eligibility for settlement. The decision as above as made by the three-Member Bench upon interpretation of the relevant sections of this Act of 1999 is binding on us and the said interpretation made there also finds support from the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules, 1999. Section 13 enjoins that the designated authority shall have to inform the appellate or revisional authority where the matter has been pending that such an application before the settlement forum under Section 5 has been preferred. This implies that when the application has been preferred the matter in dispute in revision or appeal, etc., must have been pending. Similarly, the rule as stated above, i.e., Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1999 enjoins upon the designated authority to inform the appellate or revisional authority within 7 days from the date of receipt of the application under Section 5 about filing of such application before the settlement forum. So reading as a whole the provision of the Settlement Act as well as the rule, there can be no manner of any doubt that on the date of application the matter regarding assessment of arrear tax, interest, etc., in dispute must not have been finally heard by the appellate or revisional authority. In the instant case before us admittedly the application under Section 5 when it was filed before the designated authority on July 22, 1999 the matter in dispute before the Board was not pending since the same was already dismissed by the Board's order dated March 4, 1999.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioner then wanted to put emphasis on Section 4A of the Act and the language used therein. His submission is that when the application was filed praying for settlement on July 22, 1999, the matter in dispute concerning arrear tax, etc., was pending before this Tribunal where application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 was filed on July 16, 1999. So it can be said that the matter was pending before this Tribunal when the application under Section 5 was made. But unfortunately Section 4A was brought by way of amendment with effect from July 12, 2000. No retrospective effect was given to the said provision as inserted by amendment by adding this new provision under Section 4A. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit as claimed.
11. Regard being had to all aspects of this case before us, we hold that the applicant had no eligibility when it filed the application praying for settlement before that forum under the Settlement Act of 1999. The order impugned dismissing the prayer for settlement as made by the designated authority as such suffers from no illegality. The order accordingly cannot but be sustained. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated September 4, 2000 passed by respondent No. 2.
In the result the application is dismissed. No order is made as to cost.