IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22276 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T. CHANDUKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, KURUVANGAD WOOD INDUSTRIES, KURUVANGAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, VADAKARA. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER FOR 2002-03 DATED 11.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2000-01 DATED 27.7.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST REVISION ORDER DATED 18.10.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.2006 EXT.P5 TRUE COPIES OF C FORMS AND THE LEDGER FOLIOS WHICH HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND SEALED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 22276 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT WPC is filed challenging penalty levied and confirmed under Section 45A of the KGST Act for the year 2002-03. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that penalty is arbitrary and unsustainable because heavy assessment is made on the petitioner pertaining to the very same turnover, which represents inter-State purchase and alleged unaccounted sale of timber. I find force in this contention because if the KGST assessment for 2000-01 dated 27.7.2002 has become final, then tax demanded pertains to inter-State purchases with respect to which penalty is levied. However, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that tax with accrued interest also remains unpaid and in between petitioner's property sold in revenue recovery proceedings was purchased by Government for Re.1 and is retained as bought in land. The Amnesty Scheme currently in force is very liberal and it provides for complete waiver of penalty if tax is remitted with reduced interest. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that 2 since petitioner's property is sold in revenue recovery proceedings and is retained by the Government as bought in land, petitioner may be declined the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. If liability remains outstanding even after purchase of petitioner's property for Re.1, certainly petitioner will be entitled to settle liability under Amnesty Scheme. Petitioner can claim his property back probably after settlement of liability under Amnesty Scheme. This W.P.C. is accordingly closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to make application for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme. Since this Court does not consider petitioner's case on merits, I leave it open to the petitioner to approach this Court if petitioner is not able to settle the liability under the Amnesty Scheme. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3