IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36414 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.GAYATHRI PROJECTS LTD., 6-3-1090, B-1, T.S.R.TOWERS, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 082, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, P.SREEDHAR BABU. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36414 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5, wherein an application put forth by the petitioner to avail benefit of Amnesty Scheme 2010 was rejected. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is evident that the application was rejected solely on the ground that on an earlier occasion the petitioner was granted with the benefit of Amnesty Scheme 2008, and that he had failed to make payment of the entire amounts due under the order. 2. It is evident from the provisions contained in Section 23B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) that the reason mentioned in Ext.P5 is not valid for excluding the petitioner from the eligibility for benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Therefore I am of the view that the reason stated in Ext.P5 to reject the application is not sustainable. It is evident from the Scheme that if W.P.(C).36414/10-B -2- any amount is due from an assessee, he is entitled to seek benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. So also it is evident that amount if any paid even on the basis of an earlier order need be adjusted against the amount payable under the new Scheme. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P5 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to issue fresh orders on Ext.P3 application in view of the observations contained herein above. 4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to pay off the liability before expiry of the Amnesty Scheme, orders in this regard shall be issued at the earliest possible, at any rate within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb