Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23890 OF 2022 PETITIONER:
P.M. PAUL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PURATHUR HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR – 680 615, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD – 680 506, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SALES TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR – 680 004.
3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD – 680 506, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, ENGANDIYUR – 680 615, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
ADV. DR. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23890 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner had suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment at the hands of the 1st respondent for assessment year 2016- 2017. He approached the 1st appellate authority by filing an appeal. In the meantime noticing that an Amnesty Scheme had been introduced by the Government (VAT Amnesty Scheme 2020), the petitioner sought to withdraw the appeal before the 1st appellate authority and the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by Ext.P2 order dated 29.12.2020.
The petitioner could not pay the amounts determined as payable under the Amnesty Scheme by the competent authority. The petitioner, therefore, lost the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. At this point of time, the petitioner sought to have the appeal restored for consideration on merits. That application has been rejected by Ext.P6 order stating that the petitioner has not made out any good ground for restoration of the appeal.
2.
When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly points out that the same issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in OT. Rev. No.56 of 2022, where this
WP(C) NO. 23890 OF 2022 3 Court held as follows:
“6. On a consideration of the rival submission and notwithstanding the fervent plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions prayed for in the revision petitions would only entail a hearing of the appeals preferred by the petitioner on merits, we find ourselves unable to accede to the said plea of the revision petitioner. As already noticed, the petitioner had of his own volition decided to opt for the amnesty scheme, the details of which were known to him well before he decided to withdraw the appeals pending before the Tribunal as a pre-condition for approaching the Government for the benefit of the amnesty scheme. That apart, after withdrawing the appeals pending before the Tribunal, he pursued his application under the amnesty scheme and the State Government accepted the said application and intimated the amounts to be paid by the petitioner by way of settlement under the amnesty scheme.
It is much thereafter, albeit within the time granted for making the payments under the amnesty scheme, that the petitioner realised that he would not be in a position to make the payments under the amnesty scheme and thereby lost that benefit as well. Under the said circumstances, we feel that permitting the petitioner to pursue the subsequent appeals filed by him would defeat the objects of the amnesty scheme that he voluntarily opted for and would confer an unfair advantage to the petitioner over others similarly placed, who have not been extended such concessions” 3.
Having regard to the categoric finding of the Division Bench in OT. Rev. No.56 of 2022, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot seek to get the appeal which was earlier withdrawn restored to file on the ground that he could not pay the amounts determined under the Amnesty Scheme.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- GOPINATH P.
JUDGE DK
WP(C) NO. 23890 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23890/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSEDSSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22-07-2018 Exhibit P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29-12-2020 Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-12-2021 Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO. 1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 07-12-2021 Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER IN WP (C) NO. 725/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 25-03-2022 Exhibit P6 COPY hjOF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-02-2022