Gujarat High Court

M/S Nri Crop Science vs State Tax Officer on 14 June, 2024

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/26064/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

                                                                                 undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26064 of 2022
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26110 of 2022
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26112 of 2022
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26113 of 2022
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26115 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                         M/S NRI CROP SCIENCE
                                 Versus
                       STATE TAX OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA


                                Page 1 of 39

                                                    Downloaded on : Fri Jun 28 21:34:04 IST 2024
                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/26064/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

                                                                                     undefined




                              Date : 14/06/2024

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.K.Trivedi

for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna and Ms.

Shrunjal Shah for the respondent-State.

2. By these petitions under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition;

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside letter dated 11/3/2022 (VERA-

DISPOSAL LETTER NO.

77722VSDISP018160995)being issued by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Respondent no.01 herein, whereby application of the petitioner bearing no. 99KS0035845 under Vera Samadhan Yojna 2019 was disposed;

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No, 01 to immediately restore Application No. 99KS0035845 (date of acknowledgement - 25/01/2020) being filed by the petitioner under Vera Samadhan Yojana, 2019 and directing the Respondent No. 01 to issue Remission Order / Certificate in regard to the said application No. 99KS0035845 under the said Yojana to the effect that the petitioner herein would not be required to deposit / pay any amount towards tax / interest / penalty in accordance with said Yojana as the entire amount of tax along with interest is already paid by the petitioner;

E. Pending issuance of notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operations and implementations of Assessment Order dtd. 09/11/2017 (Annexure "B' hereinabove) and notice dtd.

10/11/2017 (Annexure 'C' hereinabove) being issued by Respondent No. 03;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

F. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned

Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna

waives service of notice of rule for the

respondents.

4. Having regard to the controversy in the

narrow compass, with the consent of the

learned advocates for the parties, the

matters were taken up for hearing.

5. For sake of convenience, Special Civil

Application No. 26064 of 2022 is treated

as the lead matter.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6. Brief facts of the case are as under:

6.1 The petitioner is a proprietorship

firm. Notice dtd. 03/07/2017 for issue

based assessment u/s. 34(8A) of the

Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, was

issued to the petitioner in regard to the

period from 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014 by

the Respondent No. 03.

6.2 Assessment Order dtd. 09/11/2017

in Form 304 was issued by Respondent No.

03. A demand of tax Rs.5,77,331/+ Interest

Rs.3,37,738/+Penalty Rs.8,65,996/= Total

Rs.17,81,065/was assessed. It is also

mentioned in the said order that the

petitioner had paid a total amount of

Rs.9,15,069/-out of the aforesaid amount.

The balance amount of Rs.8,65,996/is

payable for which notice in Form 305 would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

be issued.

6.3 Respondent No. 03 had issued

Namuno 305 dtd. 10/11/2017 ie. Notice for

recovery of assessment dues whereby the

petitioner was asked to pay Rs.8,65,996/-.

6.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

by the assessment order, the petitioner

herein had preferred an appeal there

against before the Respondent No. 02. From

the said office, the petitioner had

received an acknowledgement slip dtd.

24/01/2018 evidencing that the appeal was

filed. As five different appeals in regard

to assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14,

2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were filed

together, the said acknowledge slip

contains details of all the five appeals.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6.5 On 06/12/2019, Vera Samadhan

Yojana, 2019 was introduced consequent

upon introduction of Goods & Services Tax.

Said Yojana was applicable to Gujarat

Value Added Tax Act, 1969 along with

various other statutes, All those

assessees whose appeals were pending

before the appellate authority were

eligible to avail benefits under the said

Yojana. As per the said Yojana, if the

applicant pay the principal amount of tax,

the applicant would get a waiver of

interest and penalty. The procedure for

availing the benefit was also incorporated

in the said Yojana. There was a condition

that applicant under the Yojana must

withdraw the appeal if he wants to avail

the benefit.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6.6 The petitioner had applied for

benefits under the said Yojana. The

petitioner was provided with an

acknowledgement receipt dtd. 25/01/2020 by

the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial

Tax / Commercial Tax Officer, Ghatak - 14

(ABD). It may be observed that application

is filed in regard to five different

appeals which pertains to period from

01/04/2012 - 31/03/2013 to 01/04/2016 -

31/03/2017 respectively. Details of the

respective Assessment Orders confirming

demand against the petitioner are

mentioned. Details of all the appeals

filed are mentioned. It is also mentioned

whether appeal would be withdrawn fully or

partially. It is mentioned in the said

column against all the applications that

appeal would be withdrawn fully.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6.7 The petitioner had submitted

aforesaid acknowledgement receipt dtd.

25/01/2020 before the Respondent No. 04.

In response they have received another

acknowledgement receipt dtd. 27/01/2020.

6.8 As the Yojana required that the

pending appeals may be withdrawn, in

accordance with the Yojana, an application

praying for withdrawal of pending appeal

was filed on 04/02/2020 before Respondent

No. 02.

6.9 In response to the application of

the petitioner, Respondent No. 01 had

issued intimation letter under Vera

Samadhan Yojana - 2019 which provides

details of assessment year, tax as per

application, interest as per application,

penalty as per application, total amount

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

as per application, demand as per original

order (assessment order). In addition to

these details the said letter also

provides details of first instalment

payable under the Vera Samadhan Yojana,

2019, remaining eleven instalment payable

under the said Yojana & total amount

payable under the said Yojana. It is

important to note that according to the

said intimation letter itself absolutely

no amount was payable under the Yojana

having regard to the fact that entire tax

(along with interest) was already paid and

as per the said Yojana, interest & penalty

were required to be waived.

6.10 The petitioner received phone call

from Respondent No. 01 demanding payment

of unpaid penalty amount. Although

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

petitioner had already deposited the tax

along with interest, which Is also evident

from the assessment order itself, and

although in response to thelr application

under Yojana, the petitioner received

aforesaid intimation letter clearly

mentioning that no amount at all is

payable, the said Respondent No. 01 had

not agreed to it. Therefore the petitioner

had written a letter dtd. 15/07/2020

requesting not to demand any money. Said

letter was addreseed to Respondent No. 01.

It was submitted before the office of

Respondent No. 04 on 16/07/2020.

6.11 Since no remission order was

passed in accordance with the Yojana, the

petitioner herein had submitted a detailed

letter before the Respondent No. 01 as

well as Respondent No. 04. The reason for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

submitting very same letter before said

Respondent No. 04 was that he is the

superior officer of Respondent No. 01.

Both these letters were submitted before

the said respective authorities on

31/08/2021.




   6.12                    The petitioner was in receipt

   of                letter                    dtd.                   11/03/2022

titled as "Disposal of application under

Vera Samadhan Yojana - 2019'. It was

mentioned therein that as the petitioner

had failed to make full payment as

mentioned in the intimation letter, the

application for availing benefit under the

said Yojana stands disposed. Said letter

was issued, despite the fact that as per

the intimation letter, the amount payable

by the petitioner under the Yojana was Rs.

'0'.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6.13 On 14/07/2022, without any rhyme

and reason, the Respondent No. 01 had

attached the bank account of the

petitioner. No intimation regarding the

said bank attachment was provided to the

petitioner. The petitioner had issued

payment cheques to their suppliers in a

normal course of business. Those cheques

were dishonoured by the bank. Upon

inquiring with the bank, it was learnt

that the respondents herein have asked the

bank to freeze the bank account of the

petitioner. It was also learnt that not

only the bank account of petitioner firm

was freezed but the personal saving

account of the proprietor of the

petitioner firm was also freezed. No bank

attachment notices were served upon the

petitioner, Upon Inquiry, the petitioner

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

was informed that since they had not paid

the required amount under the said Yojana

within stipulated time, their application

stands rejected. Upon requesting and

vehemently explaining the situation to all

the three respondents, the petitioner was

verbally informed that the

respondents cannot help the petitioner.

6.14 Having left with no other choice,

the petitioner herein had submitted

for restoring their appeal which was

withdrawn in order to take benefit under

the Yojana. Said application was submitted

on 18/07/2022 before the Respondent No.

02. Respondent No. 02 was pleased to grant

stay against recovery of the penalty

amount vide his order dtd. 18/07/2022. The

stay is granted uptill 31/12/2022 only.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

6.15 Therefore immediately on

19/07/2022, the petitioner

requesting him to release the attachment

of bank account in light of the aforesaid

stay order passed by the Respondent No.

02.

6.16 In response to the aforesaid, the

Respondent No. 02 had passed two separate

orders both dtd. 20/07/2022 releasing bank

attachment in regard to Bank of Baroda and

Axis Bank Ltd. Respectively.

6.17 The petitioner had filed

application for review of decision /

letter / order dtd. 11/03/2022 whereby the

application under Vera Samadhan Yojana,

2019 was disposed of under the pretext

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

that the petitioner herein has not made

full payment against amount intimated

within time limit prescribed under Vera

Samadhan Yojana. As said letter / decision

/ order was passed by Respondent No. 01.

said application was also submitted before

the said officer. Same application was

also filed before the Respondent No. 04.

The reason for submitting said review

application before Respondent No. 04 in

addition to submitting the same before

Respondent No. 01 was that Respondent

No.04 is a superior officer of Respondent

No. 01.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

illegal action of the respondent

authorities, the petitioner approached

this Court by preferring the present

petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

7. Learned advocate Mr. D.K.Trivedi for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner

has already deposited the tax and interest

prior to passing of the assessment order

which is also recorded therein and

therefore, the petitioner is entitled to

the benefit of Amnesty Scheme which

clearly provides that waiver of interest

and penalty if amount of tax is paid.

7.1 It was further submitted that the

petitioner was not granted any opportunity

of hearing before rejection of application

under the Amnesty Scheme.

7.2 It was submitted that the amount

sought to be demanded in the intimation

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

letter issued by the respondent-Authority

is based upon erroneous understanding that

the assessment order in respect of which,

the amnesty was sought was only with

respect to penalty.

7.3 It was submitted that the

assessment order was relating to tax,

interest as well as penalty and not only

with respect to penalty and as the

petitioner had already paid the tax and

interest, the demand was raised qua levy

of penalty only and therefore, it cannot

be said that the assessment order was not

for tax, interest and penalty.

7.4 It was therefore, submitted that

the petitioner was not required to pay 20%

amount of the outstanding dues as per

Clause 4.5 of the Amnesty Scheme.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

7.5 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi, in

the alternative, submitted that the

Tribunal ought not to have refused to

restore the appeals in view of the fact

that the application of the Amnesty Scheme

was rejected by the respondent-authority.

It was therefore submitted that if it is

held that the petitioner is not entitled

to the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, then the

petitioner is required to be permitted to

pursue the remedy available under the

provisions of the VAT Act by restoration

of the second appeal which was withdrawn

by the petitioner to avail the benefit of

the Amnesty Scheme.

7.6 It was further submitted that the

amount the petitioner was made to deposit

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

pursuant to the intimation letter issued

under the Amnesty Scheme is also contrary

to the Scheme as the petitioner was

eligible to the benefit of the Amnesty

Scheme without any further requirement of

deposit of any amount as what was

challenged in appeal was not mere penalty

order which would require pre-deposit of

penalty. The petitioner is therefore,

entitled to the refund of the amount

wrongly recovered pursuant to the

intimation letter.

7.7 It was also submitted by learned

advocate Mr. Trivedi that attachment of

the bank account of the petitioner is also

liable to be quashed as the petitioner has

already filed an application for Amnesty

Scheme and without any intimation of

disposal of such application, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

respondent-authorities could not have made

coercive recovery against the petitioner

during pendency of the issue with regard

to waiver of penalty.

7.8 In support of his submissions,

learned advocate Mr. Trivedi referred and

relied upon the following decisions:

 Sunflowers Developers vs. State of Gujarat

reported in 2019 SCC Online Guj 6611;

 Safal Developers v/s. State of Gujarat in

Special Civil Application No. 1338 of 2016

decided on 22/27.04.2016;

 Sky Industries Ltd vs. State of Gujarat in

Special Civil Application No. 246 of 2023

decided on 07.06.2023;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

 Varmora Granito Pvt. Ltd vs. State of

Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.

4650 of 2023 decided on 06.07.2023.

8. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Raj

Tanna submitted that the petitioner is not

entitled to the benefit of Amnesty Scheme

without depositing the amount as stated in

the intimation letter.

8.1 It was submitted that as per

Clause No. 45 of the Amnesty Scheme, where

the assessment order pertains to the

interest or penalty or both, a total of

20% of the demand value is required to be

paid to avail the benefit of the Amnesty

Scheme. It was therefore, submitted that

the contention raised on behalf of the

petitioner that as the petitioner has

already paid the tax and interest prior to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

passing of the assessment order, no

further amount is required to be paid by

the petitioner is not acceptable because

ultimately, the demand raised in the

assessment order pertains only to penalty

as the petitioner has already paid the tax

and interest.

8.2 It was submitted that time limit

prescribed under Clause 8 of the Amnesty

Scheme provides that the first installment

i.e. 10% of the amount payable shall be

paid before 15th March,2020 and the

remainder shall be paid in 11 installments

which was increased from time and again

and the last date of payment in order to

claim the benefit under the Scheme was

31.08.2021. It was submitted that however,

the petitioner did not pay the amount as

per the intimation letter issued under the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Amnesty Scheme and therefore, by the

impugned letter dated 11.03.2022 the

petitioner was intimated that the benefit

under the Amnesty Scheme cannot be granted

as the petitioner did not make full

payment against the outstanding amount

intimated by the department.

8.3 It was therefore submitted that on

perusal of the intimation letter placed on

record by the petitioner, the petitioner

was called upon to make payment as per the

Amnesty Scheme which was admittedly not

paid by the petitioner and accordingly,

the petitioner was denied the benefit of

the Amnesty Scheme.

8.4 It was submitted that the time

limit as prescribed under Clause 8 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Amnesty Scheme was extended upto

31.08.2021. However, the petitioner failed

to make payment in time and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to the benefit

of the Amnesty Scheme.

8.5 It was submitted that as per the

assessment order, a demand was raised qua

penalty only and therefore, the petitioner

was supposed to pay the amount as stated

in the intimation letter as per Clause 4.5

of the Amnesty Scheme. Learned AGP Mr.

Tanna therefore submitted that the

petitioner having failed to comply with

the requisite condition to avail the

benefit of the Amnesty Scheme by not

depositing 20% of the penalty amount as

per the assessment order, the petitioner

was rightly denied the benefit of the

Amnesty Scheme.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

9. Having heard learned advocates for the

respective parties and having considered

the facts of the case as well as the

provisions of the Amnesty Scheme, it is

not in dispute that the petitioner is

entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty

Scheme which was launched vide Resolution

dated 11.09.2019 by the Government and

subsequently revised by Resolution dated

06.12.2019 for remitting the pending dues.

As per the Clause 4.1 of the Scheme, the

vendor would be able to claim the

remission of interest and penalty upon

payment of tax amount. Clause 4.2 deals

with enforcement cases where turnover .is

increased. Clause 4.3 pertains to

enforcement cases other than prescribed in

Clause 4.2 for such cases where penalty is

imposed under section 34(7) by the VAT Act

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

wherein and in such cases, benefit of

Clause 4.1 shall be extended. Clause 4.4.

of the Amnesty Scheme deals with voluntary

disclosure whereas, Clause 4.5 prescribes

for eventualities where assessment order

pertains to the interest or penalty or

both wherein total of 20% of outstanding

demand shall stand payable in order to

avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme.

10. Clause 5 of the Amnesty Scheme pertains to

cases where appeal under Central Sales Tax

is pending or for such eventualities

prescribed in Clause 5.2 whereas Clause 6

provides for cases where the department

has preferred appeal. Clause 7 provides

for manner and method of making

application under the Amnesty Scheme.

Clause 8 of the Scheme prescribed the time

limit for payment of first installment

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

i.e. 10% of the amount payable on or

before 15.03.2020 and the remainder to be

paid in 11 installments. Said time limit

was extended from time to time and lastly,

it was extended upto 31.08.2021.

11. It is also not in dispute that the

petitioner has paid the tax and interest

prior to the framing of the assessment and

therefore, assessment order under which,

the tax and interest and penalty was

imposed and ultimately, after giving set

off of the payment of tax and interest,

the demand was raised qua penalty only.

12. It is also a matter of fact that the

petitioner challenged the assessment order

wherein tax, interest and penalty is

imposed before the First Appellate

Authority. Thus, the petitioner was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

aggrieved by imposition of tax, interest,

and penalty and not only penalty.

13. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

petitioner has accepted the assessment

order qua tax and interest and only was

aggrieved by imposition of penalty.

14. The benefit of the Amnesty Scheme is

available for waiver of interest and

penalty. However, the Scheme also provides

that no refund would be issued qua

interest or penalty which is already

deposited by the applicant. Therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to the refund

of interest but so far as the penalty is

concerned, the petitioner was entitled for

the waiver thereof. The respondent

authorities however invoking the Clause

4.5 by misinterpreting the object of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Scheme to give waiver of interest and if

the amount of tax is deposited by the

assessee. According to the respondent-

authority, only the outstanding amount is

to be seen which pertains to the penalty

and therefore as per Clause 4.5 of the

Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner was

directed to deposit 20% of the penalty.

The petitioner under the bona fide belief

that the petitioner already deposited the

entire tax and interest and the order

under challenge before the appellate

authority was the assessment order

comprising of tax interest and penalty and

therefore as per Clause 4.5 of the Amnesty

Scheme, the petitioner is not liable to

deposit any penalty. The petitioner

therefore did not deposit amount of

penalty as intimated by the respondent-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

authority. The petitioner however,

intimated the respondent-authority that as

the petitioner has already paid tax and

interest before assessment order was

passed, the petitioner is not liable to

deposit any amount of the penalty as

required by the intimation letter.

However, the respondent-authority rejected

the application of the petitioner for the

benefit of the Amnesty Scheme as the

petitioner did not deposit the amount as

required by the intimation letter.

15. Approach of the respondent-authority is

therefore contrary to the Amnesty Scheme

which is considered by this Court in

various decisions as under:

 In case of Sunflowers Developers (supra)

this Court has held as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

"20 In this backdrop, it may be germane to refer to the object behind the above referred amnesty scheme. The preamble of the Amnesty Scheme provides that the Goods and Services Act has been brought into force in the State with effect from 1.7.2017. Prior to the coming into force of this enactment, there were approximately more than 20,000 cases pending at different levels under the Sales Tax Act, Value Added Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act, Motor Spirit Taxation Act, Entry Tax Act and Sugar Cane Purchase Tax Act. As a result considerable recoveries of the amounts involved in such cases were outstanding. Various business associations in the State had made representations for expeditious and effective disposal of such old cases. By this scheme the Government will get the amounts of old pending recoveries, the business segment will get a huge relief and the administrative cost of the Government will be reduced.

Considering this submission a proposal had been made for introducing the Amnesty Scheme. Under this scheme, the outstanding recoveries under the above enactments are to be covered.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

21. Thus, the object of the amnesty scheme is to bring about expeditious and effective resolution of old disputes and recoveries of old outstanding dues of the Government and reduction of administrative costs. Since such scheme is applicable to all pending cases, the officers acting under the relevant statutes are expected to respect the object of the scheme and to ensure that the assessees get the benefit under the scheme. Therefore, when a bona fide request is made by an assessee to adjourn the hearing of a case with a view to enable him to avail the benefit of the scheme, the concerned officer is duty bound to respect such request. Therefore, when in the present case, where the matter had not been taken up for hearing for a considerable period of time, when the petitioners requested the second respondent to keep the assessment proceedings in abeyance as they wanted to avail the benefit of the amnesty scheme, the respondent ought to have respected such request and afforded the petitioners sufficient time to avail the benefit of the amnesty scheme, however, on the contrary, the second respondent, in undue haste, has proceeded to pass an ex parte high pitched best judgment assessment order under section 34(8) of the GVAT Act."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

 In case of Safal Developers (supra) this

Court has held as under:

"10. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that in view of paragraph 7 of the Scheme, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme as the amount of tax and interest has been paid prior to the Scheme having been brought into effect. As noticed earlier, paragraph 7 of the Scheme provides that the dealers shall be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme only after the payment of the taxes payable under the Scheme during the period of the Scheme. In the opinion of this court, the contention that in cases where the tax and interest have been paid prior to the coming into force of the Scheme, the Scheme would not be applicable, does not appear to be a true construction of the provisions of paragraph 7. Paragraph 7 only provides that the dealer, to be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, shall have to have paid the taxes thereunder during the operation of the Scheme. The same does not in any manner preclude those dealers who have already paid the tax prior to the coming into force of the Scheme.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

11. At this juncture, reference may also be made to paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Scheme, which give a clear indication of the intent of the Government while introducing the Scheme. Paragraph 10 of the Scheme provides that the benefit of the Scheme shall also be available to those cases where appeal proceedings are pending. However, the dealer who takes the benefit shall be required to withdraw the appeal to the extent of the transactions shown in paragraph 1(B) or shall be required to revise the appeal accordingly. Paragraph 13 provides that where in connection with transactions under paragraph 1(B), tax, interest and penalty has already been paid, then the dealer availing of the benefit of the Scheme shall under no circumstances be entitled to refund of the amount so paid. On a conjoint reading of paragraph 10 and paragraph 13 of the Scheme, it is evident that the intention is to grant benefit also to those dealers who have paid the tax and interest prior to coming into operation of the Scheme. The only condition is that in case where the tax, interest and penalty has already been paid, the dealer shall not be entitled to refund thereof. The provisions of paragraph 7 of the Scheme have to be construed in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

consonance with the provisions of paragraph 10 and 13 thereof, which clearly indicate that all those dealers who have paid the taxes during the period of operation of the Scheme and prior thereto are brought within the ambit thereof.

12. Under the circumstances, the second ground raised by the respondents for denying the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioners is also not in consonance with the provisions of the Scheme. The respondents are, therefore, not justified in denying the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioners. The above view is fortified by the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the above referred decisions.

13. Examining the case from another angle, if the interpretation put forth by the respondents were to be accepted, the same would result in a situation where dealers who have paid their taxes prior to the coming into force of the Scheme, would be denied the benefit thereof, whereas those dealers who have not paid the taxes would be granted the benefit of the Scheme, which would be clearly violative of the constitutional provisions as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26064/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and would amount to putting a premium on non- payment of taxes whereby dealers who have not paid taxes steal a march over those dealers who have paid their taxes in time."

16. It is also pertinent to note that against

the order passed by this Court in case of

Safal Developers (supra), the State

preferred Special Leave Petition No. 19629

before Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State

was also dismissed. Keeping in view the

observation made by this Court in case of

Safal Developers (supra) and considering

the facts of the present case, we are of

the opinion that respondents have

committed error while rejecting the

application under Amnesty Scheme as the