IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13799 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALEX RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.M. ALEX. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LT), KOTTAYAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 13799 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, whereby Ext.P2 order passed earlier under the Amnesty Scheme was cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite satisfying the entire amount payable by the petitioner under the Scheme, remittance made earlier to an extent of Rs.7,08,617/- pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, has not been reckoned or accounted, whereby the petitioner was wrongly called upon to satisfy the said deficit as well, so as to have the benefit, which is cited as the reason while passing Ext.P1 order cancelling the benefit provided under Ext.P2. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. This Court finds that the reasoning given by the first respondent for cancelling Ext.P2 does not appear to be correct or sustainable, in W.P.(C) No. 13799 OF 2009 2 view of the admitted extent of liability cast upon the petitioner to have the benefit of Amnesty Scheme as provided under Ext. P2. 3. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, of course, taking into account the remittance already made by the petitioner as mentioned herein before and also affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk