ORDER V. Ramasubramanian, J. - The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent holding the petitioner ineligible for applying for a one-time settlement under Ordinance of the year 2008. Heard Mr. R. Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice for the respondents. Since the issue raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass and also since it is a legal issue, the writ petition was taken up by consent for final disposal. An order of assessment was passed on September 21, 1994 in respect of the petitioner - mill for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 forcing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in TNGST AP No. 21 of 1995. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dated March 16, 1995. As against the order of the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner (III) invoked powers of suo motu revision and passed an order dated September 10, 2001, setting aside the order of the appellate authority and restoring the original assessment order passed by the assessing officer. On the basis of the said order passed on a suo motu revision, by the Joint Commissioner, the assessment officer raised a demand dated April 1, 2002, confirming the original assessment. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Ordinance, 2008 was promulgated, providing for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty and interest. Section 4 of the said Ordinance enables a person to make an application for settlement of arrears, in respect of the assessments made prior to April 1, 2002. Section 4 reads as follows : "Subject to the other provisions of this Ordinance, an applicant may make an application for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest in respect of which assessment has been made under the relevant Act prior to the April 1, 2002, against which an appeal or revision is not pending before any court on the date of filing the application." Taking advantage of the said Ordinance, the petitioner submitted an application dated November 24, 2008 under section 4 of the Ordinance. But the said application was rejected by the first respondent by the impugned order, on the ground that the benefit of the Ordinance is available only for the settlement of the arrears of tax, penalty or interest, in respect of which, assessment has been made prior to April 1, 2002 and that it is not available to those made on or after April 1, 2002. Aggrieved by such a hyper-technical objection, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. At the outset, the impugned order suffers from an incorrect interpretation to section 4. Section 4 extracted above makes it clear that the benefit of the Ordinance is applicable to the arrears of tax, penalty or interest in respect of which assessment has been made prior to April 1, 2002. In this case the original assessment was made on September 21, 1994 but it was set aside by the appellate authority on March 16, 1995. However, the same was restored by the Joint Commissioner by an order dated September 10, 2001. In other words, the arrears of tax, penalty or interest in respect of which the petitioner wanted to file an application, related to the assessment made in the year 1994 which was restored by the revisional authority in the year 2001. The order passed by the assessment officer on April 1, 2002 was only a consequential order passed to the order of the revisional authority dated September 10, 2001. It was only an order restoring the original assessment made in 1994 and hence, it cannot be treated as an assessment made after April 1, 2002. Moreover, the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes appears to have issued a letter of clarification bearing No. DC 1/23465/08 dated January 23, 2009, on certain issues. Query No. 5 and the reply furnished by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes read as follows : "Query 5 : If the assessment is made prior to April 1, 2002 and subsequently the demand is to be modified as per the appeal order after April 1, 2002, then whether such case is eligible for this scheme ? Reply : Section 2(1) of the Act specifically states that the claim is applicable for assessment made prior to April 1, 2002, under the relevant Act. Reply : Section 2(1) of the Act specifically states that the claim is applicable for assessment made prior to April 1, 2002, under the relevant Act. It therefore, follows that it would apply to case wherein the original assessment had been made prior to April 1, 2002 and modification made in the original assessment subsequent to the appeal order, even though after April 1, 2002, would also come under this category." Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled to file an application under section 4 of the Ordinance and the rejection of his application on this ground is not sustainable. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to receive the application of the petitioner under section 4 of the Ordinance. It is open to the first respondent to examine the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.