2012 (11) TMI 977 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Amnesty Scheme - settlement of the liabilities under the KGST Act - Held that - Benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was in fact extended to the petitioner and that on account of his failure to comply with the conditions of the Amnesty, offer of amnesty was revoked on 9/10/09. If the amnesty has already been extended and the same was revoked for the default committed in complying with its conditions, this Court now cannot direct consideration of Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for the same relief. Therefore, consideration of Ext.P4 also cannot be ordered - Writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner submits that subsequently yet another application was made and the application is pending consideration of the authorities. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the authorities in considering the application, if any, made by the petitioner in accordance with law, if they are otherwise eligible for the same.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of Ext.P1 application for assessment orders.
2. Consideration of Ext.P4 application for benefit under Amnesty Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company resulting from the amalgamation of five sick industrial units, sought consideration of Ext.P1 application for assessment orders. The government pleader informed that the assessment orders requested in Ext.P1 were already issued to the petitioner after the writ petition was filed. Therefore, this part of the prayer does not require further consideration.

2. Regarding Ext.P4, it was an application for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme for settling liabilities under the KGST Act. The statement filed by the 1st respondent indicated that the petitioner was advised to settle dues under the scheme but failed to comply with the prescribed procedures. Despite being given the opportunity to settle the outstanding dues in four monthly installments, the petitioner did not make any payments. Consequently, the amnesty facility was revoked on 9/10/09 due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme's conditions.

3. The court noted that since the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was already extended to the petitioner and subsequently revoked due to non-compliance, it cannot direct consideration of the Ext.P4 application seeking the same relief. Therefore, the court ruled out ordering consideration of Ext.P4 as well.

4. The writ petition was dismissed. However, the court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the authorities from considering any subsequent application made by the petitioner in accordance with the law, provided the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria for the same.