TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, also in the light of the verdict passed by this Court in previous order and after giving an opportunity of hearing in this regard. This exercise shall be completed at the earliest at any rate within 'three months' from the date of filing the objection as above. Further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance till such time. - Petition disposed of. - WP(C).No. 21450 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - MR. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. FOR THE APPELLANT : ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR THE RESPONDENT : SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGEMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: 1. Through issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction call for the records pertaining to Ext.P14 and quash Ext.P14. 2. through issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction command the 1st respondent to re-compute the liability by adjusting the amount paid under Ext.P5(b) (c) and (d) towards the principal amount of the sales tax arrears for the year 2000-01. 3. through issuing a wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sum of 17,64,257/- for the year 2000-2001 as per Ext.P7 notice dated 4.1.2011. The quantification of liability in this regard is shown in Ext.P8, which according to the petitioner reveals that, out of the total sum of 16 lakhs deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, only a sum of 4 lakhs came to be credited against the principal amount, whereas the balance 12 lakhs was set off against the interest portion. It is stated that, the manner of appropriation was also subjected to challenge by the petitioner in W.P(C). No. 4799 of 2010, wherein Ext.P9 order came to be passed on 28.03.2011 in the following terms: Post the matter for hearing after vacation. Meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to make payment of the amounts demanded under Ext.P18 or any amount which may be fixed by the assessing authority towards amnesty settlement, on or before 31.03.2011, subject to the challenge now raised against correctness of the amount demanded there under and subject to final result of this Writ Petition. 6. Since the Amnesty Scheme was to come to an end on 30.3.2011, the petitioner was required by the concerned authorities to satisfy a sum of 6,38,382/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsue the matter in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the scope and benefit of the Amnesty Scheme declared by the Government have been virtually defeated and denied to the petitioner and appropriation has been done rather arbitrarily, just with reference to Section 55 C of the KGST Act. The learned counsel also points out that, since the matter came to be finalized earlier based on the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, while passing Ext.P13 judgment, the challenge raised with regard to the manner of appropriation could not be highlighted, argued or cause to be considered while passing Ext.P13 judgment or the subsequent order in Review Petition by way of Ext.P15. In view of the right reserved in favour of the petitioner vide Ext.P14, it is still open for the petitioner to challenge the same and hence the writ petition; submits the learned counsel. 9. The learned Government Pleader points out with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity for discharging the liability under the Amnesty Scheme. It is also pointed out that, Ext.P14 was only a notice whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision or rectification, the benefit could be claimed by way of refund of the tax paid under the 'Amnesty Scheme' as provided under the sub-S.7 of S.23 B. Observing that, the Scheme, statutory prescription and the time frame were to be strictly followed, which could not have been extended by the learned Single Judge, interference was made, allowing the Writ Appeal filed by the department in part, to the above extent. This decision is also not applicable to the case in hand, as the situation pointed out is not with regard to the extension of time limit. Even if it is assumed for the sake of a moment, that the petitioner has not complied with the demand, as stipulated in Ext.P3 order granting the benefit of the Scheme, the fact remains that the Scheme itself, which was originally notified w.e.f. 01/04/2010 till 30/06/2010 has now been extended till 30/09/2010. As such, the said decision is not liable to be considered as a binding precedent to the issue in hand. xxxxxxxxxxxx 13. 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 the benefit of wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
