Kerala High Court
Polsons Diostillery vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 3 April, 2024
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
W.A.NO.204 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO.1291 OF 2021 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
POLSONS DISTILLERY,
MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDY, REP. BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER - PAUL ANTO PERINCHERY,
PIN - 680307
BY ADV.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
BY ADV.SMT.PARVATHY ADITHYA
BY ADV.SMT.UTHARA ASOKAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O., PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
SPECIAL CIRCLE, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O., TRICHUR,
PIN - 680004
3 JOINT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL),
SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
BY SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.03.2024 ALONG WITH R.P.NO.174/2014 IN W.P.
(C).NO.12901/2009, THE COURT ON 03.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 2 ::
W.P.(C).No.12901/09
& W.P.(C).No.12901/09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
R.P.NO.174 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.12901 OF 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.12901 OF 2009 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
POLSONS DISTILLERY
MURINGOOR CHALAKKUDY, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING PARTNER, J.PAUL PERINCHERRY
BY ADV.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
BY ADV.SMT.PARVATHY ADITHYA
BY ADV.SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, TRICHUR - 680 001.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR - 680 001
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
BY SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.03.2024 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.204/2024, THE COURT ON
03.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 3 ::
W.P.(C).No.12901/09
& W.P.(C).No.12901/09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
W.P(C).NO.12901 OF 2009
PETITIONER:
POLSONS DISTILLERY
MURINGOOR, CHALAKKUDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER - J.PAUL PERUNCHERRY.
BY ADV.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
BY ADV.SMT.PARVATHY ADITHYA
BY ADV.SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, TRICHUR.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR.
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 25.03.2024 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.204/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON 03.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 4 ::
W.P.(C).No.12901/09
& W.P.(C).No.12901/09
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated
23.01.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2021
whereby, the learned Single Judge found that there was no necessity
for interfering with Ext.P17 order passed by the respondent
quantifying the amounts that had to be paid by the appellant towards
arrears of tax, penalty and interest under the Amnesty Scheme
introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2020 in relation to outstanding
dues under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act [hereinafter referred to
as the "KGST Act"].
2. The Review Petition was filed pursuant to a permission
granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8500 of 2010 that
was in turn preferred against the judgment and order dated
21.12.2009 by this Court in W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009. Inasmuch as
the fate of the Review Petition would have had a bearing on the
decision taken by us in the Writ Appeal, we posted all the
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 5 ::
aforementioned cases together for hearing and now dispose all of
them by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties is as
they appear in the Writ Appeal. The brief facts necessary for disposal
of these cases are as follows:
The appellant is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant
Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, Thrissur. During the
period between 1998-99 and 2015-16, it was operating a distillery
manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor on the strength of the
licences obtained by it from various statutory authorities. The
appellant had also been paying the turnover tax in respect of the total
conceded sales turnover of Indian Made Foreign Liquor that was
supplied by it to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. On account
of a dispute having been raised with regard to inclusion of the excise
duty component in the total turnover for the purposes of levy of
turnover tax, the appellant did not pay tax on the said excise duty
component along with its returns for the relevant assessment years
from 1998-99 to 2004-05. The said issue regarding inclusion of the
excise duty component in the total turnover for the purposes of
turnover tax under the KGST Act came to be settled by the decision of
a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court only on 06.05.2005 by the
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 6 ::
judgment reported in State of Kerala v. Maharashtra Distilleries
Ltd. and another - [(2005) 141 STC 358]. The Court held that
excise duty paid will form part of the total turnover for the purposes of
levy of turnover tax.
4. The Assessing Authority completed the assessments for the
aforesaid assessment years and raised a demand of tax and interest on
the appellant vide Ext.P2 series of orders. The appellant preferred
appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the said orders,
and when recovery proceedings were launched for realisation of the
disputed tax amounts for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02,
the appellant preferred W.P.(C).No.27673 of 2006 before this Court. A
learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on
20.10.2006. The Writ Appeal that was thereafter preferred was
disposed by a Division Bench, directing the First Appellate Authority to
dispose the appeals pending before it expeditiously and by staying the
recovery proceedings in the meanwhile subject to payment of 50% of
the disputed tax, exclusive of interest within three weeks. The
appellant accordingly deposited an amount of Rs.69,09,515/- before
the Assessing Authority towards 50% of the disputed tax exclusive of
interest for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02.
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 7 ::
5. The First Appellate Authority thereafter rejected the appeals
preferred by the appellant and therefore the appellant preferred
Second Appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Appeals were
also preferred for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. While
so, by the Finance Act, 2009, an Amnesty Scheme was introduced by
the State Government to enable the assessees in arrears of tax to clear
their dues subject to relaxation in the matter of payment of interest
and penalty and reserving the right to challenge the impugned
demands. The appellant therefore submitted Ext.P4 application before
the Assessing Authority for settlement of the outstanding tax dues
under the Amnesty Scheme. The Assessing Authority appropriated the
payments already effected by the appellant till then towards the
interest due on the tax arrears and then raised a demand for the tax
dues for the purposes of settlement under the Amnesty Scheme. The
appellant was therefore intimated that the outstanding tax demand
against it for the assessment years mentioned above was in an amount
of Rs.5,22,76,093/- and 25% of the said amount [Rs.1,30,69,024] had
to be paid for settlement under the Amnesty Scheme. It is significant
to notice that thereafter although the Assessing Authority modified the
original demand from Rs.5,22,76,093/- to Rs.4,46,86,793/-, the
appellant was of the view that it was not open to the Assessing
Authority to adjust the amounts that had already been paid by the
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 8 ::
appellant towards tax uptill then, towards interest accrued on the tax
demand for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme. On the Assessing
Authority not accepting the request of the appellant to revise the
computation under the Amnesty Scheme, the appellant moved this
Court through W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009, in which, an interim order
was passed by the learned Single Judge to accept the amount of
Rs.2,47,98,006/- in four installments towards settlement of the tax
arrears payable by the appellant under the Amnesty Scheme for the
assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. It is not in dispute that the
appellant paid the aforesaid amount in compliance with the directions
in the interim order passed by this Court. Thereafter the said writ
petition was disposed along with S.T. Revisions that were pending
before this Court on other issues by a common judgment dated
21.12.2009. The S.T. Revisions as well as the writ petition were
dismissed by the said common judgment. While dismissing W.P.
(C).No.12901 of 2009, the Division Bench of this Court found that as
per Section 55C of the KGST Act, there was an express provision that
enabled the Department to adjust payment of arrears of tax made by
an assessee towards the interest first and the balance amount, if any,
towards the tax dues. In a sense therefore, the computation of the tax
amounts outstanding for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme, as
stated by the Department, was found to be correct by the Division
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 9 ::
Bench.
6. Against the Division Bench judgment rejecting the
contentions of the appellant in W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009, the appellant
preferred Civil Appeal No.8500 of 2010 before the Supreme Court, in
which, an interim order of stay of recovery of amounts from the
appellant was also directed. The Civil Appeal was finally heard on
28.11.2013 and disposed with the observation that if the appellant had
a case that the issues projected in W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009 had not
been correctly considered by the Division Bench, then it was for the
appellant to approach this Court through a Review Petition. Acting on
the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the appellant therefore
preferred R.P.No.174 of 2014 impugning the judgment in W.P.
(C).No.12901 of 2009.
7. When the Review Petition aforesaid was pending before this
Court, recovery proceedings were pursued against the appellant for
recovery of the tax amounts outstanding for the assessment years
1998-99 to 2004-05. The appellant therefore moved this Court
through W.P.(C).No.16278 of 2014, which came up for admission
before a Division Bench which admitted the Writ Petition and also
passed an interim order dated 20.10.2014 staying the recovery of
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 10 ::
disputed amounts pending disposal of the writ petition for a limited
period. The said interim stay against recovery was thereafter
extended to enure till the final disposal of the writ petition by Ext.P9
order dated 20.08.2015.
8. It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, Amnesty
Schemes were introduced through various Finance Acts in the KGST
Act, and eventually Finance Act, 2020 amended Section 23B of the
KGST Act to provide for a revised Amnesty Scheme. For the purposes
of the present Writ Appeal, we need only notice that the Amnesty
Scheme, 2020 enabled assessees to settle outstanding demands
relating to the periods up to and including 31.03.2005 as well, by
providing for a complete waiver of penalty amount and interests on tax
and on penalty if the assessees paid 50% of the principal amount of
the tax in arrears on or before 31.03.2021 or 40% of the principal
amount of tax in arrears within 30 days of the date of intimation from
the Assessing Authority. The Amnesty Scheme also mandated that
notwithstanding Section 55C of the KGST Act, if an assessee opted to
settle his arrears under the Amnesty Scheme, he could take a set off of
all payments/remittances made by him after the service of the demand
notice towards the tax effected. It was further provided that assessees
who had opted to settle their arrears under the Amnesty Scheme for
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 11 ::
the previous years but had failed to make payments could also opt to
settle their cases under the Scheme, and the amounts, if any, paid
earlier, would be given credit as tax before reckoning the arrears to be
settled under Section 23B (6) of the KGST Act.
9. The appellant therefore put in an application before the
Assessing Authority for settlement of the tax arrears for the period
from 1998-99 to 2004-05, as also for the year 2015-16 where under,
tax and interest to the tune of Rs.77,64,344/- [Rs.52,81,867/- tax +
Rs.24,82,477/- interest] had also been demanded from the appellant.
The Assessing Authority, however, refused to accept the offer of the
appellant in its application for Amnesty and took the view that the
settlement under the Amnesty Scheme would arise only in respect of
assessment years 1999-00 and 2015-16 since the assessments for the
other years had already become final through the order earlier passed
by the Assessing Authority for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme
2009. It is impugning the said order [Ext.P15] as also Ext.P17 revised
demand that the appellant approached this Court through W.P.
(C).No.1291 of 2021, from which the Writ Appeal arises.
10. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition,
was of the view that the appellant had settled the tax liability including
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 12 ::
the interest amount for all the assessment years from 1998-99 and
2004-05 except 1999-00 under the Amnesty Scheme of 2009. He
accordingly found that only the tax liability for the assessment years
1999-00 and 2015-16 could be considered under the Amnesty Scheme
of 2020. The appellant was accordingly permitted to remit an amount
of Rs.89,93,467/- within 30 days from the date of the judgment to avail
the benefit of the Amnesty Schemes of 2009 and 2020.
11. Before us, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel
Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather, duly assisted by Adv.Smt.Parvathy Adithya
that the learned Single Judge erred in assuming that the assessments
in respect of all the assessment years from 1998-99 to 2004-05, except
1999-00 had been completed and finalised by the earlier proceedings.
It is, in particular, pointed out, with reference to the litigation that
went up to the Supreme Court and continues to be pending through
R.P.No.174 of 2014 that while the respondent State was prevented
from effecting any recoveries of outstanding tax demands for the said
years, the payments made by the appellant towards tax in those
assessment years were all subject to the result of the litigation
aforementioned. Through a computation sheet produced before us, it
is shown that the appellant had made the following payments towards
the KGST liability for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05,
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 13 ::
namely,-
Payments made by the Assessee towards KGST liability
Date Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
25.07.2006 784647/25.7.06 (Ext.P3(a)) 6909515
11.08.2008 As per High Court order 225000
14.07.2009 DD No 679176 6199502
07.08.2009 Cheque No 008767 6199502
08.09.2009 Cheque No 009998 6199502
09.10.2009 Cheque No 012175 6199502
Total 31932523
12. As against the above payments, the Amnesty amount for the
period from 1998-99 to 2004-05 computed in accordance with the
Amnesty Scheme, 2020 would be in an amount of Rs.1,67,26,574/- and
the amnesty amount for the assessment year 2015-16 would be in an
amount of Rs.78,17,162/-. It is argued therefore that as against the
total of Rs.2,45,43,736/- that would be due to the State by way of
Amnesty amount under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 for the assessment
years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16, the appellant has already paid
Rs.3,19,32,523/-. It is the case of the learned senior counsel therefore
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 14 ::
that the matter can be settled by accepting the payments already
effected by the appellant as above towards the Amnesty amount of
Rs.2,45,43,736/-. The learned senior counsel further submits that the
appellant is even ready to forgo the claim for refund of the differential
amount of Rs.73,88,787/- [3,19,32,523 - 2,45,43,736] in the interest of
settlement. The learned senior counsel however submits that the
appellant would be entitled to a refund of an amount of Rs.7,98,253/-
that was paid during the pendency of W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2021 and as a
condition for the grant of stay of recovery during the pendency of the
Writ Petition. It is further pointed out by the learned senior counsel
that inasmuch as the Review Petition has not been withdrawn by the
appellant and continues to be pending before this Court and the
recovery of balance amounts from the appellant had been stayed all
along by orders of this Court and the Supreme Court, the finding of
the learned Single Judge that the assessments during the period from
1998-99 to 2004-05 except 1999-00 had become final cannot be legally
sustained.
13. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen,
the learned Senior Government Pleader that the appellant cannot
re-agitate the issue of applicability of Section 55C of the KGST Act in
relation to payments effected by it in the past. It is his submission
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 15 ::
that since the Division Bench of this Court had already found that the
provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act would apply to the
payments effected by the petitioner till then, the mere fact that the
Supreme Court had permitted the appellant to prefer a Review
Petition to decide the prayers in W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009 separately,
cannot be seen as a permission granted to the appellant to rake up the
concluded issue at this belated stage. It is his further submission that,
at any rate, during the pendency of this litigation, the Department had
already adjusted the amount paid by the appellant, towards its tax and
interest dues for the various assessment years in question by applying
the provisions of Section 55C of the KGST Act and assessment orders
[Ext.P11 series] had been passed which were not impugned by the
appellant in W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2021 although they were produced in
the said writ petition. It is his contention that when one goes by
Ext.P11 series of assessment orders, which the appellant does not
separately impugn, the demand made by the respondents has to be
seen as valid and reflecting the correct dues position of the appellant
under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020.
14. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the
view that inasmuch as the Supreme Court had, while disposing the
Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant against the earlier judgment of
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 16 ::
a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009 relegated
the appellant to prefer a Review Petition before this Court so as to
agitate the issue as to whether the payments towards tax made by the
appellant under the Amnesty Scheme of 2009 could be adjusted
towards interest first in accordance with the provisions of Section 55C
of the KGST Act, the said issue will remain live for consideration by us
if we decide to allow the Review Petition and reinstate the Writ
Petition. Taking note of the Writ Appeal that is now before us, in
which the appellant seeks the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020,
for settlement of his tax arrears for the assessment year 2015-16, as
also for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05, which are also
envisaged for settlement under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020, we are of
the view that in the interests of settlement, and towards giving a
quietus to the long pending litigation, we must allow the Review
Petition and restore W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009 on file so as to consider
the claim of the appellant for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme
holistically in the light of both the Schemes, namely, the Amnesty
Scheme, 2009 and Amnesty Scheme, 2020. We do so. The Review
Petition is therefore allowed and W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009 reinstated
before this Court by recalling the common judgment dated 21.12.2009
inasmuch as it relates to W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009. The contentions of
the petitioner and respondents in relation to W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 17 ::
were already considered at the time of hearing the connected Writ
Appeal and Review Petition. Consequently, this judgment shall now be
seen as disposing W.A.No.204 of 2024, R.P.No.174 of 2014 and W.P.
(C).No.12901 of 2009.
15. When we consider W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009, which deals
with the claim for settlement of the tax demands for 1998-99 to 2004-
05 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2009 and the claim of the appellant for
settlement of the same dues along with the dues for assessment year
2015-16 under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 in W.A.No.204 of 2024, we
are of the view that inasmuch as the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 envisages
a settlement of even those dues that are pending for the assessment
years 1998-99 to 2004-05, the appellant must get the benefit of the
method of computation of Amnesty amount for the purposes of
settlement as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020. As the
Scheme contains provisions which are beneficial to an assessee, the
pendency of the Review Petition, together with the fact that interim
orders were passed by this Court and the Supreme Court staying
recovery proceedings against the appellant, should be seen as the
backdrop against which the payments of various amounts were
effected by the appellant during the pendency of the litigation
referred above. Accordingly, the said payments have necessarily to be
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 18 ::
seen as provisional and subject to the final outcome of the litigation.
When we reckon the payments already made by the appellant and
compare it with the settlement amount arrived at through a
computation as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020, we find
that as against a liability of Rs.2,45,43,736/-, the appellant has paid an
amount of Rs.3,19,32,523/-. We are of the view that the said amount
paid by the appellant can be treated as in full and final settlement of
the dues for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 so
as to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. We are
conscious of the fact that in this process, the appellant would have
effectively paid an amount of Rs.73,88,787/- in excess to the
Department. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
graciously submits that he waives the claim for a refund of the said
amount in the spirit of settlement.
16. Before parting with these cases, we might only refer to the
contention of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the
respondents that Ext.P11 series of assessment orders that were
produced in W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2021 but not impugned therein
virtually binds the appellant and prevents it from assailing the
demands made by the Department for differential dues under the
Amnesty Scheme, 2020. While it may be a fact that the respondents,
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 19 ::
based on their understanding that the amounts due to them under the
earlier Amnesty Scheme of 2009, after adjustment of amounts paid by
the appellant towards interest in terms of Section 55C of the KGST
Act, was as shown in Ext.P11 series of assessment orders, it has to be
borne in mind that in the earlier round of litigation through W.P.
(C).No.12901 of 2009, the appellant was essentially challenging a
computation made under the Amnesty Scheme of 2009 wherein he had
opted for settlement of the dues for the assessment years 1998-99 to
2004-05. Ext.P11 series of orders was passed even while the litigation
challenging the computation under the earlier Amnesty Scheme was
pending before the Supreme Court and thereafter before this Court in
R.P.No.204 of 2024. Ext.P11 series of assessment orders can
therefore be taken only as provisional and subject to the resolution of
the disputes between the parties as agitated in W.A.No.204 of 2024,
R.P.No.174 of 2014 and W.P.(C).No.12901 of 2009. Thus, in effect,
what we have done through this judgment is to compute the Amnesty
benefit available to the appellant in terms of the Amnesty Scheme,
2020 by treating all the payments made by it in the past as provisional
and towards the payments required under the said Scheme. At this
distance of time, and with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation,
we believe that this would be the most prudent way of resolving the
issue.
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 20 ::
Thus, we dispose these cases by (i) setting aside the impugned
judgments of the learned Single Judges, (ii) quashing the impugned
orders and demand notices in the Writ Petitions and (iii) declaring that
the liability of the appellant towards turnover tax interest and penalty
for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05 and 2015-16 shall be
seen as finally settled in terms of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 through
the payment of Rs.3,19,32,523/- referred to above. We also make it
clear that the appellant shall be entitled to a return/refund of the
amount of Rs.7,98,253/- paid pursuant to the interim order passed in
W.P.(C).No.1291 of 2021. The said amount shall be paid to the
appellant within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
prp/
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 21 ::
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON
31-05-2006.
ANNEXURE R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON
18-06-2010.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 22 ::
APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.12901/2009
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1998-99.
EXT.P1(A): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1999-00.
EXT.P1(B): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2000-01.
EXT.P1(C): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2001-02.
EXT.P1(D): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2002-03.
EXT.P1(E): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04.
EXT.P1(F): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.N.1973/2006.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR
1998-99.
EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR
1999-00.
EXT.P3(B): COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR
2000-01.
EXT.P3(C): COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR
2001-02.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER AMNESTY SCHEME ALONG WITH
ENCLOSURES.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
W.A.No.204 /24,
R.P.No.174/14 in :: 23 ::
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P7(A): COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7(B): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMNET OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.
(C).NO.23966/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
