Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
M/S.Gayathri Projects Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt) on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36414 of 2010(B)


1. M/S.GAYATHRI PROJECTS LTD., 6-3-1090,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT),
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                   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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.113 seconds.