9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 2020 in relation to outstanding dues under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the "KGST Act"]. 2. The Review Petition was filed pursuant to a permission granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8500 of 2010 that was in turn preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2009 by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009. Inasmuch as the fate of the Review Petition would have had a bearing on the decision taken by us in the Writ Appeal, we posted all the aforementioned cases together for hearing and now dispose all of them by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties is as they appear in the Writ Appeal. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows: The appellant is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, Thrissur. During the period between 1998-99 and 2015-16, it was operating a distillery manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor on the strength of the licences obtained by it from various statutory authorities. The appellant had also been paying the turnover tax in respect of the total conceded sales turnover of Indian Made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and penalty and reserving the right to challenge the impugned demands. The appellant therefore submitted Ext. P4 application before the Assessing Authority for settlement of the outstanding tax dues under the Amnesty Scheme. The Assessing Authority appropriated the payments already effected by the appellant till then towards the interest due on the tax arrears and then raised a demand for the tax dues for the purposes of settlement under the Amnesty Scheme. The appellant was therefore intimated that the outstanding tax demand against it for the assessment years mentioned above was in an amount of Rs. 5,22,76,093/- and 25% of the said amount [Rs. 1,30,69,024] had to be paid for settlement under the Amnesty Scheme. It is significant to notice that thereafter although the Assessing Authority modified the original demand from Rs. 5,22,76,093/- to Rs. 4,46,86,793/-, the appellant was of the view that it was not open to the Assessing Authority to adjust the amounts that had already been paid by the appellant towards tax uptill then, towards interest accrued on the tax demand for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme. On the Assessing Authority not accepting the request of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted the Writ Petition and also passed an interim order dated 20.10.2014 staying the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal of the writ petition for a limited period. The said interim stay against recovery was thereafter extended to enure till the final disposal of the writ petition by Ext. P9 order dated 20.08.2015. 8. It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, Amnesty Schemes were introduced through various Finance Acts in the KGST Act, and eventually Finance Act, 2020 amended Section 23B of the KGST Act to provide for a revised Amnesty Scheme. For the purposes of the present Writ Appeal, we need only notice that the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 enabled assessees to settle outstanding demands relating to the periods up to and including 31.03.2005 as well, by providing for a complete waiver of penalty amount and interests on tax and on penalty if the assessees paid 50% of the principal amount of the tax in arrears on or before 31.03.2021 or 40% of the principal amount of tax in arrears within 30 days of the date of intimation from the Assessing Authority. The Amnesty Scheme also mandated that notwithstanding Section 55C of the KGST Act, if an assessee opted to settle his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. It is, in particular, pointed out, with reference to the litigation that went up to the Supreme Court and continues to be pending through R.P. No. 174 of 2014 that while the respondent State was prevented from effecting any recoveries of outstanding tax demands for the said years, the payments made by the appellant towards tax in those assessment years were all subject to the result of the litigation aforementioned. Through a computation sheet produced before us, it is shown that the appellant had made the following payments towards the KGST liability for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05, namely,- Payments made by the Assessee towards KGST liability Date Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 25.07.2006 784647/25.7.06 (Ext.P3(a)) 6909515 11.08.2008 As per High Court order 225000 14.07.2009 DD No 679176 6199502 07.08.2009 Cheque No 008767 6199502 08.09.2009 Cheque No 009998 6199502 09.10.2009 Cheque No 012175 6199502 Total 31932523 12. As against the above payments, the Amnesty amount for the period from 1998-99 to 2004-05 computed in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 would be in an amount of Rs. 1,67,26,574/- and the amnesty amount for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues for the various assessment years in question by applying the provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act and assessment orders [Ext. P11 series] had been passed which were not impugned by the appellant in W.P.(C).No. 1291 of 2021 although they were produced in the said writ petition. It is his contention that when one goes by Ext. P11 series of assessment orders, which the appellant does not separately impugn, the demand made by the respondents has to be seen as valid and reflecting the correct dues position of the appellant under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. 14. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that inasmuch as the Supreme Court had, while disposing the Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant against the earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 12901 of 2009 relegated the appellant to prefer a Review Petition before this Court so as to agitate the issue as to whether the payments towards tax made by the appellant under the Amnesty Scheme of 2009 could be adjusted towards interest first in accordance with the provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act, the said issue will remain live for consideration by us if we decide to all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessarily to be seen as provisional and subject to the final outcome of the litigation. When we reckon the payments already made by the appellant and compare it with the settlement amount arrived at through a computation as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020, we find that as against a liability of Rs. 2,45,43,736/-, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 3,19,32,523/-. We are of the view that the said amount paid by the appellant can be treated as in full and final settlement of the dues for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 so as to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. We are conscious of the fact that in this process, the appellant would have effectively paid an amount of Rs. 73,88,787/- in excess to the Department. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant graciously submits that he waives the claim for a refund of the said amount in the spirit of settlement. 16. Before parting with these cases, we might only refer to the contention of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents that Ext. P11 series of assessment orders that were produced in W.P.(C).No. 1291 of 2021 but not impugned therein virtually binds th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
