COASTAL TILES AND SANITARIES Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, has approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal of the 1st respondent in granting permission requested by the petitioner for settling arrears under the Amnesty Scheme, on the ground that it had not opted for settlement of the arrears for the assessment year 2012- 13, taking note of its success before the First Appellate Authority, but ignoring the fact that the Department had carried the matter in a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that inasmuch as on the date of submission of the application for Amnesty, the liability for the assessment year 2012-13 under the KVAT Act did not exist, on account of the order of the First Appellate Authority in its favour, it was entitled to treat the said year as one without any outstanding liability to the Department for the purposes of the Amnesty Scheme.

(2.) Through a statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that, as per the terms of the Amnesty Scheme in vogue, all arrears including tax, interest and penalties pertaining to an assessee have to be settled together, and the arrears for the purposes of settlement have to be calculated as on the date of submission of the option by the assessee. In cases where appeals have been filed by an Officer empowered by the Government under the respective enactment, and where final orders are pending, the said cases can also be opted for settlement under the Scheme by reckoning the demand in the original assessment order. It is the case of the respondents, therefore, that inasmuch as for the assessment year 2012-13, the respondents had carried the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, in favour of the assessee, in a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, within the time permitted under the Statute, the said assessment year had also to be taken into account by the petitioner for the purposes of settlement under the Amnesty Scheme. The decision of the 1st respondent in not granting permission as requested by the petitioner is sought to be justified on the said reasoning.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.