IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31478 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANIL KRISHNAN NAIR, SURYAPRAKASH ENTERPRISES, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALUVA. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31478 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge is against Ext.P4 by which the permission granted under the Amnesty Scheme, under Section 23B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) is revoked. With respect to arrears of sales tax due for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05, the petitioner was allowed payment under the Amnesty Scheme as evidenced by Ext.P2. The total amount payable was fixed at Rs.4,09,140/-, which was allowed to be paid in four monthly installments, at the rate of Rs.1,02,285/- each, the first of which was directed to be paid within 15 days of receipt of the order and the balance in three equal monthly installments starting from January, 2009 onwards. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had effected payment of the first two installments. But with respect to payment of the third installment a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. According to the petitioner he fell ill and he W.P.(C)No. 31478 of 2009 -2- was not having knowledge about the dishonour of the cheque. However, through Ext.P3 the petitioner requested for permitting payment of the balance two installments within an extended period. But the 1st respondent issued Ext.P4 order revoking the benefit granted under the Amnesty Scheme. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent ought to have issued a notice or intimated the petitioner about the dishonour of cheque issued towards the third installment. It is further contended that before issuing Ext.P4 order of revocation, no notice was served on the petitioner, as required under Section 23B (5) of the KGST Act. Yet another contention is that the request of the petitioner for granting permission to make payment of the balance amount within a reasonable time has not been taken into consideration by the 1st respondent while revoking the benefit granted under the Amnesty Scheme. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contended that there is a clear violation in W.P.(C)No. 31478 of 2009 -3- effecting payment as per Ext.P2 order. It is further contended that the benefit is revoked after issuing notice to the petitioner and Ext.P4 is an erratum notice issued, since there was a mistake in the original order issued. The 1st respondent relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathiya Telephone Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Customs reported in AIR 2002 SC 74 in support of their contention that the compliance of the Amnesty Scheme have to be strictly construed and relaxation or extension of time with respect to such schemes could not be granted in the ordinary course of transactions. 4. Having considered rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that since there is no clear evidence forth coming with respect to intimation given to the petitioner with respect to dishonour of the cheque, and since there is no evidence to the effect that a notice as contemplated under Section 23B (5) was issued before revoking the benefit, I am of the opinion that W.P.(C)No. 31478 of 2009 -4- the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the balance amount, under the scheme, since he had already remitted two installments. 5. Under the above circumstances, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 is directed to be kept in abeyance till 31.12.2009. If the petitioner makes payment of the balance two installments along with interest if any liable on or before 31.12.2009, either in lump sum or in two monthly installments, the respondents shall treat Ext.P4 as withdrawn and such payments shall be considered as due compliance of Ext.P2 order. 6. It is made clear that on failure to make payment of the amounts as stipulated above, the respondents can proceed with further steps pursuant to Ext.P4. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/