9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.117/2020(D), setting aside the order of the assessing authority rejecting the option exercised by the complainants for settling the arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and declaring that the complainants are entitled to opt for the Amnesty Scheme. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- The complainants before the Lok Ayukta, who are husband and wife, are the Directors of M/s. Welgate Video Private Limited. The 1st complainant, the Managing Director, submitted an option for payment of arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020; but the same was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the Tahsildar (RR) has collected and remitted Rs.1,23,71,421/- through auction and that auction of another property was under processing and hence, the complainants are not entitled to opt for settling the arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme-2020. Challenging the said order, Ext.P1 complaint was filed before the Lok Ayukta wherein the complainants, inter alia, sought for declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme-2020 and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act. It is contended that the action of the petitioners who are officers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) and the Revenue Recovery Act in discharging their function under the said Acts cannot be taken as 'maladministration' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Lok Ayukta Act. It is also contended that Section 51 of the KGST Act bars proceedings against officers for any act done or purporting to be done under the Act in good faith and that the provisions of the aforesaid Acts have been overlooked by the Lok Ayukta while passing Ext.P3. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for direction to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Lok Ayukta and to declare that Ext.P1 complaint is not maintainable and that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P1 complaint. 6. After the passing of Ext.P3 report, the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st complainant before the Lok Ayukta, expired. His legal heirs are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the petitioners and Sri.D.Sajeev, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri.Sadchit P. Kurup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Orissa and Others [(1983)2 SCC 433] and contends that when the statute provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order, the impugned order can be challenged only by the mode prescribed by the statute. To distinguish between an administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial order, Sri.Rafiq relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBP & CO v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another [(2005) 8 SCC 618] and contended that the order of the Sales Tax Officer rejecting the application for opting the Amnesty Scheme is a quasi- judicial order and cannot be called in question before the Lok Ayukta. Sri.Rafiq also relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bernard [2002 (3) KLT 254] to contend on the limits of jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunayana v. Tahsildar [2013 (2) KLT SN 3] was also relied on, to contend that, when a proper regulated procedure is contemplated under a special enactment for redressal of grievance, the aggrieved person ought to have approached the authorities under the special enactment and cannot bypass the procedure and approach the Lok Ayukta. 9. Sri.Sajeev, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay;" Going by the definition of 'maladministration', only unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminating action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of administrative functions would amount to maladministration. The power exercised by the Sales Tax Officer in rejecting the application of the complainants opting for the Amnesty Scheme-2020 is a quasi judicial function and a hierarchy of remedies is provided against the said order under Chapter-VII of the KGST Act apart from the remedy available before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases. If the complainants are aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer rejecting the application opting for the Amnesty Scheme 2020, they ought to have invoked the aforesaid remedies. A Division Bench of this Court, in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2017 (2) KHC 850], held that Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta are not appellate or supervisory authorities over other competent forums created under different Statutes, because each of those Statutes provides its own remedial steps li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
