Mandatory compliance with the conditions laid down in the Scheme before filing for settlement is essential, and failure to comply with the prescribed minimum amount at the time of application can lead to the rejection of the settlement application.

1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and decided by a common order.

2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the rejection of the Settlement Order.

3. The facts of the case is that the Petitioner Company has applied under Section 5 of the Samadhan Act, 2011, whereby, they have deposited the money. According to them, the amount was paid as per the Best Judgment Assessment Due. However, the respondents had wrongly interpreted the Act and applied Sections 7(a) and 7(c) together for arriving at the amount. In other words, a Best Judgment assessment as contemplated under Section 7(a) is distinctively different from assessment made under Section 7(c). Therefore, the rejection of the settlement application by the respondents is absolutely not correct. Further, the Petitioner Company is not liable to pay the amount as sought for by the respondents. Due to wrong interpretation, the very right of the petitioner got defeated. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents did not properly interpret and apply the Sections 7(a) and 7(c) of the Act. If the property in question is auctioned, they will be put to irrepairable loss, as they are already several financial constraints.

4. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, through the impugned orderwould contend thatthe Petitioner Company knowing fully well that on the date when he applies for the Settlement, necessarily, he has to comply with the mandatory provisions, namely, Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil NaduSales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011. (for short 'the Act'). Conveniently, the petitioner company had paid the lesser amount and claiming the Settlement Certificate as if the Petitioner Company has paid the amount as per the Best Assessment Order, which is far below than the actual amount to be remitted as prescribed in the Act.

5. To lay on emphasis this fact, he brings to the notice of this Court, in one of the assessment years of the Petitioner Company, under this Scheme,in respect of the application made under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Tamil NaduSales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011 for the year 2003-2004, wherein, the petitioner company instead of paying 100% admitted tax, along with 40% enhanced tax, with 7.5% interest, they have paid only 40% of the amount alone, which is phenomenally very low. Similarly, in the same order, in the interest portion, the Petitioner Company has to pay the amount along with interest was Rs.82,05,177/-. But, the petitioner Company had paid Rs.25,78,636/-. Therefore,the balance amount is to be paid by the petitioner Company is Rs.56,25,6541/-. The difference in depositing the amount is 69%.

6. He would further contend that,at the time of filing of the Settlement Application itself, he had more than 69% of the amount due, which is a requisite deposit, as contemplated under the sub-section 3 Section 6 of the Tamil NaduSales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act,2011. As per the rules, not only the tax but also the interest has to be paid. But, conveniently, all along, he has been paying the lesser amount. In fact, the Petitioner Company has earlier filed a Writ Petitionin W.P.(MD).Nos.5638 of 2014 etc.,. The said Writ Petitionwas disposed of by this Courton 03.09.2014, wherein, this Court remanded the matter for consideration and for personal hearing to the Petitioner Company and thereafter, directed the authorities concerned to pass orders afresh. The learned Additional Government Pleaderwould point out that the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions are passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. In any view of the matter, when the petitioner company fails to comply with the norms laid down in the Settlement Scheme, he becomes ineligible in availing the Scheme itself. Therefore,rightly, the respondentshave rejected the claim of the Petitioner Comp