1. The relief sought for in all these writ petitions are interconnected and identical and therefore all these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions is a limited company and a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and presently under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

3. The petitioners opted for IFST scheme and availed deferral of sales tax for a period of nine years upto a ceiling of Rs.420.62 lakhs, which benefit was extended based on an eligibility certificate issued by SIPCOT. An agreement was entered into with the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur, and time for repayment was available to the petitioners till 30.06.2017.

4. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur, on 31.08.2005, proposing to cancel the deferral agreement, dated 13.08.1999. The petitioner submitted their explanation and the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, by proceedings, dated 27.09.2005, cancelled the deferral agreement and demanded the entire sales tax deferred and directed the petitioner to pay the deferred tax in one lump sum. Aggrieved by such an action, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11099 of 2005.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to operational problem, demise of it's chairman, resignation of few directors, labour unrest and resignation of management staff, who were in-charge of account department, there was no proper attention devoted to the accounting or sales tax matters. The petitioner is said to have filed monthly returns under TNGST Act and under CST Act for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007, these returns were finalized by the second respondent on best of judgment basis as the petitioner failed to produce documents, despite notice being issued. The petitioner did not challenge the orders of assessment and filed applications under Section 16(D) of TNGST Act before the first respondent to be dealt with by the special committee for redressal of grievances for all the assessment years.

Orders were passed on such applications being presented under Section 16(D) of the Act. Based on the proceedings of the special committee, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner proposing to make assessment in terms of the orders passed by the special committee.

6. At the relevant time, the Government introduced a settlement scheme by enacting Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011 (Act No.29/2011) (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Settlement Act'). The scheme provided for one time settlement of arrears subject to conditions. The petitioner opted to avail the benefit of the Settlement Act and submitted applications on 30.04.2012. These applications were pending for nearly two years and they were rejected by the first respondent by passing individual orders, which are impugned in one set of writ petitions in this batch of cases.

7. The entire batch of writ petitions fall under three categories. The first category of cases are filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the applications filed under the Settlement Act on the ground that the petitioner having effected payment as required under the Act and the calculation made by them is incorrect apart from stating that the interest is payable from the date on which the tax fell due. The second category of cases is challenging the orders passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitions filed under the Settlement Act on the ground that the special committee constituted under Section 16(D) of the Act has set aside the order of assessment and remitted the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The third category of cases is challe