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 828 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit of Amnesty Scheme under KGST - tax with interest paid after the budget announcement but before the effective date - revenue refused to grant the benefit of amnesty scheme since the tax was paid before the effective date on which scheme came into force - Held that:- "budget proposal" was made as to the introduction of the Amnesty Scheme with effect from April 1, 2010 till June 30, 2010 and it was after the said budget speech, the petitioner volunteered to effect the payment of Rs. 75,000 as a token of bona fides to have the liability settled, simultaneously seeking to keep the revenue recovery proceedings in abeyance till the above scheme was notified and the application to be preferred by the petitioner was considered accordingly, as requested in exhibit P2 dated March 20, 2010. Obviously, the declaration of the scheme and the benefit sought to be extended thereunder, enabling the defaulters to opt for the same, to clear the liability, availing of the benefit of waiver of a substantial portion of the liability was with an intent to generate revenue in a better and effective manner, rather as a measure of "give and take" policy. The success of the scheme notified earlier, with regard to the revenue collection, the factual circumstance that the several persons could not make use of the opportunity because of the time-limit and other adverse circumstances as given in exhibit P1 budget speech, etc., weighed much and the "Legislature" thought it fit to renotify the scheme, providing necessary provisions in the Finance Bill, 2010. Declaration of such scheme is purely a matter of "policy" of the Government. Once such a "policy" was declared and proclaimed to be given effect to from April 1, 2010, the first question that comes up for consideration is whether there could have been any further coercive proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act from the part of the respondents, particularly the second respondent. The petitioner was very much at liberty to wait till April 1, 2010, filing necessary application to have his matter considered as to the eligibility and to have satisfied the liability without effecting any "pre-deposit" as done by him in the instant case. If the stand of the respondents is to be accepted, it may have to be said that the person who effects a portion of the liability after announcement of the scheme is being penalized for having effected such payment. This court does not think that such an anomalous situation is contemplated, intended or sought to be implemented by State/Legislature. More so since, once the scheme is announced and specified to be commenced from the first day of the relevant financial year, for a specified period, it may not be proper for the State/Department to augment the revenue collection by resorting to coercive steps before the defaulters get an opportunity to apply for and obtain the benefit of the scheme, which otherwise can only defeat or frustrate the scheme itself and in turn, the "policy" of the Government. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders quantifying the liability of the petitioner, in the application preferred for extending the benefit under the "Amnesty Scheme", giving credit to a sum of Rs. 75,000 paid by him as payment towards a portion of the liability under the scheme, and effect appropriation, in tune with the terms of the scheme. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|