IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33780 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.P.LIYAKATHALIKHAN & CO, KALLADIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY P.LIYAKATHALIKHAN,MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMBA VILLAGE-II, KALLADIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33780 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 in so far as it does not give credit to the payment of Rs.75,000/= effected on 5.6.2008 and a direction is sought to give credit to the amount so paid to the tax liability. The assessment year in question is 1994 - 1995 under the CST Act. Petitioner decided to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme 2008 - 2009. Ext.P2 is the intimation. Therein, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,408/= under the Head “Principal amount”. According to petitioner, petitioner came to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/= on 5.6.2008 to the tax liability as per orders of the Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount should be given credit in the matter of adjustment of the amount payable under the Amnesty Scheme. In other words, the amount demanded in Ext.P2 should be reduced by Rs.75,000/=, is the contention. WPC.33780/08 U 2 2. I heard Smt. Meera V. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Counsel for petitioner submits that the Amnesty Scheme was brought into force on 1.4.2008. Petitioner having paid the amount of Rs.75,000/= on 5.6.2008, it was not legal on the part of the Officer to not having adjusted the said amount. She further contended that this Court has taken the view that if the payment is made prior to 1.4.2008, the person is not entitled to adjust the same towards the amount payable under the Amnesty Scheme. Per contra, learned Government Pleader points out that the payment having been made pursuant to the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the amount cannot be adjusted and it is also already adjusted towards interest. The application under the Amnesty Scheme, it is pointed out, was filed subsequently on 26.9.2008, after the dismissal of the Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the fact that Rs.75,000/= was paid pursuant to the interim order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Appeal came to be dismissed, and it is WPC.33780/08 U 3 only after the dismissal of the Appeal, the application invoking Section 23B was filed on 26.9.2008. 4. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to adjustment of Rs.75,000/=. It may be true that this Court has taken the view in the facts of some cases that the payment having been made prior to 1.4.2008, the petitioners therein are not entitled to the adjustment of the amounts paid prior to 1.4.2008. The Amnesty Scheme was brought into force on 1.4.2008. The Amnesty Scheme requires a voluntary act on the part of the assessee to apply for the benefits of the Scheme and to avail the benefits as are vouchsafed for the assessee under the Act. Petitioner in this case made payment of Rs.75,000/= on 5.6.2008, pursuant to the interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. At that time, the amounts were payable towards both principal and interest. The amount came to be adjusted in accordance with law towards interest. The Amnesty Scheme does not, in my view, contemplate a reopening of payments which have been made prior to the date of the application. WPC.33780/08 U 4 When the application is received, the Officer must consider what are the amounts payable towards principal/penalty/interest and grant appropriate relief in accordance with the Act. It may not be open to him to reopen the adjustments already made. No amount was demanded from the petitioner under the head “Interest”, in view of the provisions of the Act. That does not mean that what was already adjusted as payment towards interest, is to be re-visited and the payment adjusted against the demand made under the Amnesty scheme. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.