SAJIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the liability mulcted upon him to satisfy a sum of Rs. 44,808/-, pursuant to Ext.P12 communication issued by the Executive Engineer of P.W.D. to the 4th respondent, over and above the amount shown in Ext.P10 for settling the entire liability under the 'Amnesty Scheme'. The factual position is as follows: The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the trade of wall tiles, floor tiles etc., run in the name and style as 'Himalaya Agencies' and is an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent. During the course of business, the petitioner turned to be a defaulter with regard to the satisfaction of the amount due to the sales tax authorities, in respect of the assessment years 2002 - '03 and 2003 - '04, which led to recovery proceedings resorting to the remedy under the R.R. Act. The property of the petitioner having an extent of 45 cents and the building situated therein was caused to be attached and the same was notified for sale.

(2.) Incidentally, the petitioner was also proceeded against, by the financier Bank in respect of the loan transaction, whereupon the account was declared as 'NPA' and S. 13 (2) notice was issued under the SARFAESI Act, followed by further coercive steps by proceeding against the secured asset. Met with the situation, the petitioner took steps to have a private sale, so as to secure maximum amount for discharging the liabilities towards the Revenue as well as to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Government had declared an 'Amnesty Scheme' in tune with S. 23B of the KGST Act and accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for availing the benefit thereunder. After considering the said application, it was granted as per Ext.P10, whereby the existing liability more than Rs. 9 lakhs was brought down to Rs. 5,18,045/- and 25% of the said amount was directed to be satisfied immediately and the balance was to be paid by way of 'three' equal monthly installments commencing from November, 2008.

(3.) Pursuant to further steps, the prospective purchaser of the property, by name one Mr. Joshy, satisfied the liability to the revenue and also to the Bank. Thereafter, an application was filed to lift the attachment, when the petitioner was informed that there was a further liability to the tune of Rs. 44,808/- towards 'valuation charges' payable to the P.W.D., which according to the petitioner, is not liable to be satisfied under any circumstances, more so, in view of Ext.P10 settling the quantum under the Amnesty Scheme. However, in view of the compelling circumstances, so as to give effect to the private sale, the petitioner, who was finding it difficult to make both the ends meet, made a request to the prospective purchaser of the property to satisfy the said extent as well, who in turn satisfied the liability as per Ext.P13 receipt (as averred in paragraph 25 of the Writ Petition). According to the petitioner, no such amount ought to have been demanded or realized from the petitioner, in view of the Amnesty Scheme and the statutory prescription, which made him to approach this Court by filing present Writ Petition, seeking for refund with interest.