IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33638 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.NAZEERA, PROPRIETRIX, THOUSAFIC HARDWARES, IVTH MILE, CHENGALA, MUTTATHODY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------- WP(C) No.33638 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT With respect to the assessment year 2000-2001, the petitioner was issued with a modified order of assessment as per Ext.P1, raising a total demand of Rs.1,63,900/-. The petitioner had approached the first respondent seeking settlement of arrears under the Amnesty Scheme 2008-2009. Through Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was permitted to settle the arrears by remitting a total amount of Rs.1,00,482/-, in four equal installments, the first of which to be paid within 15 days of receipt of the order and the balance in three equal monthly installments starting from the month of December 2008 onwards. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order was received by him on 13.1.2009. He had paid the first installment of 25% on 28.1.2009. According to the petitioner, he had effected payment of the balance three installments during the month of June, 2009, as evidenced from Exhibit .P3 letter. Since the first respondent took a stand that the payment is belated and the benefit of Exhibit .P2 order could not be extended to the petitioner, he submitted a further application, which was rejected through Ext.P4, stating the reason that he has already opted for Amnesty Scheme and it was granted through Exhibit .P2, and therefore further consideration is not possible. 3. After rejecting claim of the petitioner recovery steps was initiated for realising the entire amount covered under Exhibit .P1 assessment as evidenced from Exhibit .P5 notice, without considering payments already made pursuant to Exhibit .P2 order. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and for a direction to the respondents to treat the arrears as settled under the Amnesty Scheme pursuant to payments made under Ext.P2 order. 4. It is contended on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. It is stated that after issuing a notice the benefit granted has already been revoked. It is further stated that the first respondent was justified in rejecting the second application for Amnesty benefit. Contention of the respondent is that on going by the provisions contained in Sec.23B, it has to be construed strictly and no relaxation can be allowed with respect to time for payment under the Amnesty Scheme. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharatiya Telephone Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (AIR 2002 SC 74) is relied on in the above respect. 5. Having considered rival contentions it is noticed that, the fact remains that the petitioner had already effected payment of the entire amount due in accordance with Ext.P2 order, though belated. It is also noticed that inspite of the vague statement of the respondent, no document is forthcoming to prove conclusively that the benefit granted under Ext.P2 was actually revoked at any point of time. Section 23B mandates requirement for issuing notice and for issuing specific order for revocation of the benefit under the scheme in case of failure to comply with the conditions for payment. Considering the fact that there is no specific revocation and also considering the fact that the entire amount under the Amnesty Scheme has already been paid, within a short period from the dates stipulated under Ext.P2, I am of the opinion that direction can be issued to the respondents to treat the arrears as settled by virtue of Ext.P2 order. Therefore, Ext.P5 notice is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the payments due under Ext.P1 as settled, subject to liability for payment of interest if any due. C.K.Abdul Rehim, Judge cms