IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21603 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. IRSHAD, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MOLLA MUHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SURYA TIMBER INDUSTRIES, ALLAPRA, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. FATHIMA MOHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. MOLLA MOHAMMED, MOLLA HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.SHABEER ALI SRI.T.K.SASI KUMAR SRI.SIMI C.S. RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R.), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE AND TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 21603 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this court seeking a direction to the first respondent to adjust an amount of Rs.2,49,980/- paid by the second petitioner along with Rs.1,30,304/- remitted by the first petitioner on 10.7.2008 towards the entire liability of the first petitioner as compounded for a total amount of Rs.5,21,216/- and reschedule the balance liability. A direction is also sought to adjust an amount of Rs.2,49,980/- paid by the second petitioner towards the entire liability of the first petitioner. The further prayer is for a direction to consider and pass orders on Exts.P9 and P11 and till such time, the benefit granted under the Amnesty Scheme may be kept alive. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioners is as follows: First petitioner is the defaulter. Second petitioner is the surety. First petitioner is the son of the second petitioner. It is stated that there were suits pending challenging recovery proceedings and they were dismissed. Statutory remedies also became final. Ext.P1 is the judgment in the suits, O.S. Nos.66 of 2001 and 40 of 2002. Second petitioner preferred Ext.P2 representation. Ext.P3 is the Circular for settlement of the arrears WPC.21603/2008. 2 under the Amnesty Scheme 2008-2009 with the specimen application form. First petitioner approached the Government under the Amnesty Scheme by filing Ext.P4 application. Government was pleased to settle the dues of the first petitioner as follows: “Sl.No. Year Amount 1. 1994-1995 Rs.1,75,310/- 2. 1995-1996 Rs.1,14,183/- 3. 1996-1997 Rs.1,82,745/- 4. 1999-2000 Rs. 29,920/- 5. 2000-2001 Rs. 12,240/-” So the total liability was compounded as Rs.5,11,383/- and Rs.9,833/- as interest. Ext.P5 is the intimation under the Amnesty Scheme. Petitioner is called upon to pay Rs.1,30,304/- on or before 12.7.2008 and the balance amount in three equal instalments. 3. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner has remitted various sums as evident from Exts.P6 to P8. Therefore the petitioners have approached the respondents to adjust an amount of Rs.2,49,980/- paid by the second petitioner vide Ext.P9 application. Ext.P10 is the evidence regarding the payment of first instalment pursuant to Ext.P5, it is submitted. It is further stated that when the first petitioner approached the second respondent with copy of the representation, the WPC.21603/2008. 3 second respondent directed to file another representation. Therefore, the first petitioner preferred another representation as Ext.P11. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there is no basis to not to adjust the amount paid by the second petitioner, who was infact contesting the case against her. 6. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out that the Amnesty Scheme contemplates certain concessions on the basis of the Scheme, which was brought into force from 1.4.2008. He points out that all the payments totaling to Rs.2,49,980/- made by the second petitioner were made prior to 1.4.2008. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the said amounts have been adjusted and it is thereafter that the application of the first petitioner was considered and the reliefs granted. Learned Government Pleader also points out that in fact the petitioners have got benefit of nearly Rs. Four Lakhs. 7. I see no illegality in the method adopted by the respondents. Payments made prior to 1.4.2008 cannot be taken into consideration for granting the benefit. In other words, payments made prior to 1.4.2008 WPC.21603/2008. 4 cannot be utilised for settling the liability due to be discharged on the basis of the intimation given by the authority under the Amnesty Scheme. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb