2013 (1) TMI 687 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of Amnesty Scheme denied - KGST Act - Held that - Although the petitioner was given an option in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench to avail of the benefit of he scheme, the petitioner did not submit any application as prescribed. Instead of that petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation which did not satisfy the requirements of the scheme. It was in those circumstances benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was not given - no fault with the assessing officer in denying claim - writ dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to tax assessment for the year 2004-2005 under KGST Act, interpretation of Ext.P5 judgment regarding Amnesty Scheme benefit, validity of Ext.P7 modified order based on non-compliance with scheme conditions.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under the KGST Act, challenged the tax assessment for the year 2004-2005, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed ST(Rev.) No.256/2010 against Ext.P3 order, leading to the Ext.P5 judgment by the Division Bench. In Ext.P5, the court held that the petitioner could settle the liability, including interest and penalty, under the Amnesty Scheme. Following this, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the assessing authority, resulting in the issuance of Ext.P7 modified order. The challenge in the writ petition pertains to the validity of Ext.P7 order.

The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that Ext.P5 judgment allowed the petitioner to avail of the Amnesty Scheme benefit, and the petitioner had applied for it through Ext.P6 request. However, the court, as highlighted by the Government Pleader, clarified that Ext.P5 judgment only granted the liberty to avail of the scheme, which required the assesse to apply in the prescribed manner. The court emphasized that the scheme's conditions, including the application process, must be met for eligibility.

In the present case, despite the option provided in Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner failed to submit the application as prescribed under the Amnesty Scheme. Instead, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation, which did not fulfill the scheme's requirements. Consequently, the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was not granted, leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 modified order by the assessing officer. The court found that the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme's conditions justified the assessing officer's decision in issuing Ext.P7 order.

As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could still pursue statutory remedies against Ext.P7 order without prejudice. The judgment emphasized that any appeal filed by the petitioner should be considered independently, unaffected by the observations made in the current judgment.