9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the sales tax arrears for the year 2000-01 as per the stipulations of the Amnesty Scheme floated by the 2nd respondent." 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the course and proceedings pursued by the respondents in appropriating various amounts effected by the petitioner by deposits at different points of time, simply crediting against the interest portion, instead of crediting the same towards the principal amount and denying to extend the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme to have the liability liquidated accordingly. It is contended that, pursuant to different notices issued to the petitioner, the liability has been substantially scaled down, also with the intervention of this Court at different points of time. The sequence of events is as follows: 3. The petitioner was sought to be proceeded against in respect of 'penalty' to the tune of 15,95,503/- for the year 2002 -2003 by issuing Ext.P2 notice dated 5.09.2008 and the 'tax liability' of 27,07,201/-vide Ext.P1 notice dated 2.02.2010. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 4799 of 2010 and after hearing both the sides, the writ petition was admitted, passing Ext.P3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner was served with another notice dated 27.9.2011 as borne by Ext.P11, asking the petitioner to satisfy a further sum of 57,419/-(which according to the learned Government Pleader is only a portion of the amount as disclosed in Ext.P14). This amount was also satisfied by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P12 receipt dated 29.09.2011. 7. When the writ petition came up for further consideration before this Court, it was submitted from the part of the respondents that, penalty has already been satisfied by the petitioner in respect of the 2002-2003 and the sole remaining liability was in respect of the assessment for the previous year. In the said circumstance, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the re-conveyance of land which was taken over by the Government as 'brought in land' as per Section 50(2) of the RR Act, was ordered to be considered, subject to satisfaction of the current market value of the land, as specified by the Government in the Government Order dated 22.3.1966. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, pursuant to satisfaction of the market value of the property, the land now stands re-conveyed to the petitioner. 8. While so, the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit is relevant which is as follows: "xxxxxxxxxx 8. The petitioner has not remitted that amount as per the permission granted under amnesty schemer for the assessment year 2000-01 amounting Rs. 21,64,257/-. Notice dated 07.05.2012 proposing revocation of permission granted was issued and the proposal has been given effect as per order dated 13.06.2012. Since Rs. 12 lakhs had been remitted prior to the date of filing option under amnesty scheme i.e., on 14.05.2010, the same was adjusted towards the interest due as per Section 55(C) of the KGST Act." 10. It is not brought to the notice of this Court from the part of the respondents as to how Ext.P14 came to be finalized. It is also not seen whether the notice was issued by registered post, whether the proceedings were finalized with regard to the revocation of permission granted under the Amnesty proposal after giving an opportunity of hearing and whether the concerned order stated as passed on 13.6.2012 was forwarded to the petitioner by registered post. The counter affidavit is also silent as to the manner in which the service was effected and whether any further proceedings were purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity 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 Ext.P1 Budget Speech etc. weighed much and the 'Legislature' thought it fit to re-notify 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 01/04/2010, 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 01/04/2010, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
