High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs M/S.Casinova Distilleries (P) … on 17 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs M/S.Casinova Distilleries (P) … on 17 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 247 of 2010()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.CASINOVA DISTILLERIES (P) LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY

 Dated :17/01/2011

 O R D E R
    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
            ----------------------------------
         S.T.Rev.Nos.247, 248, 250, 251& 260 of 2010
            ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 17th day of January, 2011

                          J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

These connected revision cases are filed by the State

challenging the orders of the Tribunal cancelling interest levied

under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act. The revision cases filed are

for the years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Adv.Shri. Raju Joseph who

took notice for the respondent today produced before us

proceedings dated 20/09/2008 whereby the Department has

accepted Amnesty benefits sought for by the respondent and

allowed settlement of arrears of tax, interest and penalty for the

assessment years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005. Shri.Vinod Chandran,

Special Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that

the Amnesty benefit granted is subject to result of litigations, which

includes revision cases pending in this Court. However, it is seen

that revision cases are filed with an inordinate delay of over three

years on 16/11/2010, whereas the Anmesty benefit was granted

S.T.Rev.Nos.247, 248, 250, 251& 260 of 2010
-2-

way back in 2008 on 20/09/2008. We do not think the State can file

revision petitions after allowing settlement of liability under

Amnesty scheme and after inducing the party to settle liability at the

reduced rate.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the delay condonation

petitions more so when the demands stand settled more than two

years back under Amnesty scheme. Therefore, all the delay

condonation petitions are dismissed and consequently, the revision

cases are also dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)

jg