IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38388 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- NIRAPPUKATTIL TIMBERS, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD, REP.BY SABU JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER, NIRAPPUKATTIL HOUSE, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN, SRI.K.S.ROCKEY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-1, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.38388 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Assessment with respect to the year 2001-02 was completed against the petitioner, which was taken up in appeal and further in second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Through Ext.P1 order issued by the Appellate Tribunal, the matter was remanded for passing fresh orders of assessment, in view of observations contained therein. When revenue recovery steps were initiated without issuing the consequential orders, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.4380 of 2010. In Ext.P2 judgment, this Court permitted the petitioner to avail benefit under the Amnesty Scheme, for which the assessing authority was directed to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the proceedings through which the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was allowed to the petitioner. But the petitioner further submitted Ext.P4 application seeking rectification in the W.P(C) No.38388 of 2010-W 2 calculations, pointing out non-consideration of request for adjustment of tax paid for the years 2004-05 to 2008-09, on the sale of timber effected out of the closing stock of the year 2000-01. Since Ext.P4 application was not considered, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.29667 of 2010. In Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed consideration of Ext.P4 application (Ext.P7 in that writ petition), with opportunity provided to the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the order through which the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 was declined. 2. It is noticed that the assessing authority had specifically found that, tax paid with respect to the subsequent year could not be adjusted against liability for any previous year, and that the amount of tax remitted with the returns for the subsequent year has already been given credit. The 1st respondent found that the petitioner is liable for payment of the amount quantified under Ext.P3. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 and seeking directions against the respondent to W.P(C) No.38388 of 2010-W 3 deduct the amount mentioned in Ext.P4. I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has got any grievance against decision taken under Ext.P6, he has to workout remedies before the statutory authority, and the issue could not be agitated in this writ petition. Therefore I am of the view that this writ petition deserves not merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to avail benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, which was permitted through Ext.P3, and hence seeks direction to the 1st respondent to accept payment of the amount due under Ext.P3, despite the fact that the dates stipulated for payment was already lapsed. 5. It is noticed that the Amnesty Scheme 2010 is in force till 31.12.2010. Therefore, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting the petitioner to make payment of the amounts covered under Ext.P3 on or before 31.12.2010. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to accept W.P(C) No.38388 of 2010-W 4 payment under Ext.P3 and to settle the arrears on the basis of the benefit granted under Ext.P3, if the petitioner makes payment of the amounts covered thereunder, on or before 31.12.2010. 6. It is made clear that the challenge raised against Ext.P6 is left open for agitation before the statutory authority, if permissible under law. Needless to say that inspite of settlement of payment under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner will be entitled for credit of amounts if any found eligible to be adjusted at any subsequent stage, in view of the provisions contained under Section 23B of the KGST Act. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.38388 of 2010-W 5