9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst which the payments of various amounts were effected by the appellant during the pendency of the litigation referred. Thus, the said payments have necessarily to be seen as provisional and subject to the final outcome of the litigation. These appeals are disposed off by setting aside the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judges, quashing the impugned orders and demand notices in the Writ Petitions and declaring that the liability of the appellant towards turnover tax interest and penalty for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 shall be seen as finally settled in terms of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 through the payment of Rs. 3,19,32,523/-. Petition disposed off. - HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. For the Appellant : By Adv. Sri. K.I. Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), By Adv. Smt. Parvathy Adithya, By Adv. Smt. Uthara Asokan For the Respondent : By Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, Sr. Government Pleader. JUDGMENT DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. The Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 23.01.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No. 1291 of 2021 whereby, the learned Single Judge found that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x and interest on the appellant vide Ext. P2 series of orders. The appellant preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the said orders, and when recovery proceedings were launched for realisation of the disputed tax amounts for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, the appellant preferred W.P.(C). No. 27673 of 2006 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 20.10.2006. The Writ Appeal that was thereafter preferred was disposed by a Division Bench, directing the First Appellate Authority to dispose the appeals pending before it expeditiously and by staying the recovery proceedings in the meanwhile subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax, exclusive of interest within three weeks. The appellant accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 69,09,515/- before the Assessing Authority towards 50% of the disputed tax exclusive of interest for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02. 5. The First Appellate Authority thereafter rejected the appeals preferred by the appellant and therefore the appellant preferred Second Appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Appeals were also preferred for the assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djust payment of arrears of tax made by an assessee towards the interest first and the balance amount, if any, towards the tax dues. In a sense therefore, the computation of the tax amounts outstanding for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme, as stated by the Department, was found to be correct by the Division Bench. 6. Against the Division Bench judgment rejecting the contentions of the appellant in W.P. (C). No. 12901 of 2009, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 8500 of 2010 before the Supreme Court, in which, an interim order of stay of recovery of amounts from the appellant was also directed. The Civil Appeal was finally heard on 28.11.2013 and disposed with the observation that if the appellant had a case that the issues projected in W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009 had not been correctly considered by the Division Bench, then it was for the appellant to approach this Court through a Review Petition. Acting on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the appellant therefore preferred R.P. No. 174 of 2014 impugning the judgment in W.P. (C). No. 12901 of 2009. 7. When the Review Petition aforesaid was pending before this Court, recovery proceedings were pursued against the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took the view that the settlement under the Amnesty Scheme would arise only in respect of assessment years 1999-00 and 2015-16 since the assessments for the other years had already become final through the order earlier passed by the Assessing Authority for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme 2009. It is impugning the said order [Ext. P15] as also Ext. P17 revised demand that the appellant approached this Court through W.P. (C). No. 1291 of 2021, from which the Writ Appeal arises. 10. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition, was of the view that the appellant had settled the tax liability including the interest amount for all the assessment years from 1998-99 and 2004-05 except 1999-00 under the Amnesty Scheme of 2009. He accordingly found that only the tax liability for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2015-16 could be considered under the Amnesty Scheme of 2020. The appellant was accordingly permitted to remit an amount of Rs. 89,93,467/- within 30 days from the date of the judgment to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Schemes of 2009 and 2020. 11. Before us, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel Sri. K.I. Mayankutty Mather, duly assisted by Adv. Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition. It is further pointed out by the learned senior counsel that inasmuch as the Review Petition has not been withdrawn by the appellant and continues to be pending before this Court and the recovery of balance amounts from the appellant had been stayed all along by orders of this Court and the Supreme Court, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the assessments during the period from 1998-99 to 2004-05 except 1999-00 had become final cannot be legally sustained. 13. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader that the appellant cannot re-agitate the issue of applicability of Section 55C of the KGST Act in relation to payments effected by it in the past. It is his submission that since the Division Bench of this Court had already found that the provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act would apply to the payments effected by the petitioner till then, the mere fact that the Supreme Court had permitted the appellant to prefer a Review Petition to decide the prayers in W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009 separately, cannot be seen as a permission granted to the appellant to rake up the concluded issue at this belated stage. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents in relation to W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009 were already considered at the time of hearing the connected Writ Appeal and Review Petition. Consequently, this judgment shall now be seen as disposing W.A. No.204 of 2024, R.P. No. 174 of 2014 and W.P. (C). No. 12901 of 2009. 15. When we consider W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009, which deals with the claim for settlement of the tax demands for 1998-99 to 2004-05 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2009 and the claim of the appellant for settlement of the same dues along with the dues for assessment year 2015-16 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 in W.A. No. 204 of 2024, we are of the view that inasmuch as the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 envisages a settlement of even those dues that are pending for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05, the appellant must get the benefit of the method of computation of Amnesty amount for the purposes of settlement as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. As the Scheme contains provisions which are beneficial to an assessee, the pendency of the Review Petition, together with the fact that interim orders were passed by this Court and the Supreme Court staying recovery proceedings against the appellant, should be see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provisional and subject to the resolution of the disputes between the parties as agitated in W.A. No. 204 of 2024, R.P. No. 174 of 2014 and W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009. Thus, in effect, what we have done through this judgment is to compute the Amnesty benefit available to the appellant in terms of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 by treating all the payments made by it in the past as provisional and towards the payments required under the said Scheme. At this distance of time, and with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation, we believe that this would be the most prudent way of resolving the issue. Thus, we dispose these cases by (i) setting aside the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judges, (ii) quashing the impugned orders and demand notices in the Writ Petitions and (iii) declaring that the liability of the appellant towards turnover tax interest and penalty for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 shall be seen as finally settled in terms of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 through the payment of Rs. 3,19,32,523/- referred to above. We also make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to a return/refund of the amount of Rs. 7,98,253/- paid pursuant to the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
