Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 951 - KERALA HIGH COURTEligibility of revocation of amnesty, granted for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 - Revocation was not notified as provided under sub-section (6) of section 23 of the KGST Act, 1963 - Default to maintain sufficient amounts to honour the cheques issued - Two cheques were presented having been honoured and the amounts collected thereby having been appropriated towards the interest dues of the petitioner under section 55C of the Act. Appropriation under section 55C being a statutory mandate; is not a question to be addressed in a notice under sub-section (b) of section 23B - Held that:- the default of the assessee to remit amounts on or before the last date stipulated, dis-entitles the assessee, without anything more from settling its arrears under the scheme. Neither a notice nor a revocation order is contemplated on default made by the assessee to pay the amounts stipulated before the last date notified. There is absolutely no infirmity, in the assessing officer having declined the petitioner's continuance under the Amnesty Scheme which is a consequence of the petitioners default. The petitioner cannot claim any further eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme especially since the period is over, and there can definitely be no adjustment under one year and revocation in the others. Therefore the petitioner's claims are not valid under the provisions of Section 23B and the appropriation under section 55C cannot in any manner be assailed, since that is a statutory compulsion, not open for debate or adjudication. A payment beyond time was found to be liable to adjustment or entitled for refund as the law provides and appropriation under section 55C is what the law provides, herein followed by Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income-tax (AP) [2002 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court]. - Decided against the petitioner
|