Judgment :- The present writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.13582/2002/B2/S.R.104/02 dated 11.9.2003 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to accept the petitioners application in Form I under Samadhan Act. 2. The 2nd respondent levied penal interest under Section 24(3) for a sum of Rs.21,854/- in Rc.134/99, dated 02.03.2000.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the revision petition in R.P.No.41/2000 and the same is also pending on the file of the 1st respondent, Deputy Commissioner (CT).During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent once again has passed another order in TNGST.0500016/95-96, dated 21.3.2002 enhancing the penal interest from Rs.21,854/-to Rs.32,941/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before the 1st respondent on 8.7.2002 and the same is also pending now. In the meanwhile, the Samadhan Act providing for settlement of arrears of tax, penalty or interest in dispute in any appeal or revision pending as on 28.02.2002 was enacted by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application in Form I under Section 5 of Samadhan Act in respect of Revision Petition No.41/2000 by paying 25% of the disputed amount as per Section 5 of the Act. In the said application, he has disclosed about the order dated 21.03.2002 as well, and the same was acknowledged in Form II by the 1st respondent in S.R.No.104/2002/B8, dated 30.09.2002.During the pendency of the Revision Petition, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 17.05.2003.Subsequently, as per the order passed in the revision, the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.8,235/- at the rate of 25% of Rs.32,941/-, but not 25% of Rs.21,854/-.The respondents rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 6(3) on the ground that the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.8,235/-at the rate of 25% of Rs.32,941/-, but not 25% of Rs.21,854/-.When the petitioner replied to the notice and paid the difference sum of Rs.2,775/-by demand draft with a request to the 1st respondent to accept the application under Samadhan Act, the respondents, by accepting the differential sum of Rs.2,775/-, passed the impugned order dated 11.9.2003, rejecting the application under Samadhan Act. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent had overlooked a vital fact that the Revision Petition No.41/2000 was filed on 24.4.2000 against the order in TNGST.0500016/1995-96 dated 02.03.2000 and the same was pending as on 28.02.2002.Therefore, it was further contended that as per Section 2(1) (b) and 4 of the Samadhan Act, the petitioner is eligible for settlement. In his further submission, it was stated that the 1st respondent should have seen that the order dated 21.03.2002 enhancing the penal interest amount from Rs.21,854/- to Rs.32,941/-by the 2nd respondent is unlawful and the same cannot supercede the order dated 02.03.2000. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the application was verified carefully and found that the application was submitted by the petitioner, against the levy of interest under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act, 1959, which was revised by order dated 21.03.2002.Thereafter, the applicant had paid Rs.5,460/- calculating 25% of Rs.21,854/- levied in the original proceedings dated 02.03.2000.But the proceedings dated 02.03.2000 became invalid due to the passing of revision proceedings dated 21.03.2002.Therefore, the arrears of Rs.21,854/-as per the original proceedings dated 02.03.2000 got infructuous and the arrears of Rs.32,941/-levied in revision proceedings are valid. On that basis, it was argued that the petitioner had to pay Rs.8,235/- i.e., 25% of Rs.32,941/- under the Samadhan Scheme. Further, it was mentioned that the payment made by the petitioner falls short of Rs.2,775/-and as per the Section 6(3) of the Act, if the amount paid by the applicant along with the application falls short of more than 10% of the amount determined, the designated authority shall reject the application after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondents to show cause. Therefore, it was prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed an application under Samadhan Scheme on 24.9.2002 enclosing the order dated 2.3.2000 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and another order dated 21.03.2002, wherein the interest amount was increased to Rs.32,941/-.The petitioner while disputed the levy of interest of Rs.21,854/-, the Assessing Officer enhanced the levy of interest from Rs.21,854/- to Rs.32,941/-. 6. The petitioner has filed an application under Samadhan Scheme on 24.9.2002 enclosing the order dated 2.3.2000 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and another order dated 21.03.2002, wherein the interest amount was increased to Rs.32,941/-.The petitioner while disputed the levy of interest of Rs.21,854/-, the Assessing Officer enhanced the levy of interest from Rs.21,854/- to Rs.32,941/-. Though the petitioner had paid inadvertently Rs.5,460/-, which is equivalent to 25% of Rs.21,854/-, once again, to make the good the difference sum, the petitioner had enclosed another DD No.008794 dated 28.05.2003 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Purasawalkam Branch, Chennai, for a sum of Rs.2,775/-.Therefore, the 1st respondent should have accepted the application, as he has already paid the difference amount, because, the 1st respondent by order dated 21.03.2002, enhanced the penal interest from Rs.21,854/- to Rs.32,941/-.Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of settlement of arrears under the Samadhan Act, which was pending in Revision Petition No.41/2000 as on 28.02.2002.It is in clear compliance of the conditions of eligibility as per Samadhan Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 11.9.2003, is not sustainable in the eye of law and the accordingly, the same is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to accept the petitioners application in Form I under Samadhan Act and pass orders in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs.