2023 (6) TMI 631 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of Amnesty Scheme - after the amount of Rs. 5, 37, 686/- is paid by the petitioner the petitioner is orally informed that it has paid Rs. 2, 000/- less and therefore by way of the impugned communication dated 06.10.2022 the petitioner was informed that the application made by it under Amnesty Scheme has been disposed of on the ground that the petitioner failed to make the payment of full principal amount of tax. HELD THAT - It appears that the petitioner made an application under the Amnesty Scheme. However while so doing the petitioner through inadvertence mentioned the amount of outstanding tax as Rs. 5, 37, 686/- instead of Rs. 5, 39, 787/- - From a perusal of the record it is revealed that as per Clause-7(3) of the Amnesty Scheme after the submission of application by the petitioner within the period of 15 days but not later than 28.02.2020 the concerned officer of the Respondents was required to intimate the petitioner online about the amount to be paid under the Amnesty Scheme. From the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in SUNFLOWERS DEVELOPERS 2020 (1) TMI 265 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT it can be said that the object of the amnesty scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of old disputes and recoveries of old outstanding dues of the Government and reduction of administrative costs. Since such scheme is applicable to all pending cases the officers acting under the relevant statutes are expected to respect the object of the scheme and to ensure that the assessees get the benefit under the scheme. Merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid Rs. 2000/- less towards principal outstanding amount of tax it cannot be denied the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. This petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit of an Amnesty Scheme, the discrepancy in the amount paid under the scheme, and the interpretation of relevant clauses of the scheme.

Eligibility for Amnesty Scheme:
The petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling elastics, was assessed under VAT and CST Acts for the year 2006-2007. The Government of Gujarat introduced an Amnesty Scheme in 2019, allowing dealers to avail benefits by withdrawing pending appeals and paying the principal tax amount. The petitioner applied for the scheme, paid the specified amounts for VAT and CST taxes as per the officer's calculation, and the payment was accepted by the Respondents. However, a discrepancy arose when the Respondents claimed the petitioner had paid Rs. 2000 less, leading to the denial of benefits under the scheme.

Discrepancy in Payment Amount:
The Respondents contended that the petitioner mentioned a lower outstanding tax amount in the application for the Amnesty Scheme compared to the demand notice issued earlier. The Respondents argued that since the petitioner paid Rs. 2000 less than the total principal amount outstanding towards tax, they were justified in denying the benefit of the scheme as per Clause-4.1(1) of the Amnesty Scheme. The Respondents opposed the petition, emphasizing the importance of paying the full principal amount to qualify for the scheme.

Interpretation of Amnesty Scheme Clauses:
The Court examined the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, particularly Clause-7(3, to determine the obligations of the petitioner and the Respondents regarding the payment verification process. Reference was made to a previous Division Bench decision highlighting the scheme's objective to resolve old disputes efficiently and reduce outstanding dues. The Court emphasized that the scheme aims to benefit all pending cases and urged officers to respect the scheme's purpose, ensuring that assessees receive the intended benefits. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that a minor discrepancy in the payment amount should not disqualify them from the Amnesty Scheme.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned communication and directing the Respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting the objectives of such schemes to facilitate the resolution of old disputes and reduce administrative costs. The judgment highlighted that minor errors in payment should not hinder eligible parties from availing the benefits intended by such schemes.